Cox  Sons,  Buckley  &  Co, 

8  EAST  Fifteenth  Street,  New  York, 

AND    LONDON,    ENG. 


STAINED  CLASS^ 


Colored  designs  for  Memorial  Windows  specially 
prepared  and  estimates  submitted  free,  in  Eng- 
lish Cathedral,  G-eometrical,  G-resaille,  or 
Mosaic    2:lass,   from    the    simplest    to    the    most 


L 


34- 


:^*^^! 


f 


#«"•'■"''■/.. 


GIVEN    BY 


ign. 


estimates    furnished    for    lighting 

d  Chapels  in  Gas,  Lamps,  or  Elec- 

Gold,  Silver,  and  Electro-plated 

plate    kept    in   stock,  —  also    made 


sign.     Photos  submitted. 


ading    Desks,    Chairs,   and    every 
of     seating,     etc.,    for     Churches, 


Schools. 


Estimate    and    designs 


Chapel   Curtains,   Cushions.     Our 
t;  Rugging,  Pads  and  Hassocks. 

bs,  in  silk   or    stuff,   for   Lutheran, 
Baptist      ministers.        Academic 
Hoods. 


VESTMENTS 


Eucharistic  or  Mass,  in  linen  and  silk;  Cas- 
socks, Surplices,  Stoles,  etc. 


CLERICAL  CLOTHING  in  every  branch.  We  have  made  a  specialty  of 
this  branch  for  over  fifty  years.  Samples  of 
cloths  and  Catalogue  submitted  post  free. 


EGG'L  ART, 


ART  WORK. 

WE  are  specialists,  established  in  1857,  ^^^^  ^^'^^ 
do  everything  pertaining  to  the  artistic  side 
of  the  church  interior.  This  includes  Color  Decora- 
tion for  the  walls,  Stained  Glass  for  the  windows, 
and  Furniture  for  the  Chancel,  or  pulpit  platform. 
Information,  photographs,  designs,  and  estimates  will 
be  submitted  upon  request. 

We  advocate  honest  work  and  materials  for  the 
church.  What  does  this  mean?  It  means  Stained 
Glass,  not  paper  imitation  ;  it  means  good  colors  for 
the  walls,  not  w^all-paper ;  it  means  hard  wood  for 
furniture,  not  pine,  grained ;  it  means  mosaic  and 
marble,  not  cement  imitations. 

There  is  no  reason  why,  even  for  a  limited  ex- 
pense, the  best  materials  cannot  be  secured.  A  good 
designer  uses  these  in  simpler  ways  to  decrease  the 
cost ;  he  does  not  advocate  the  use  of  poor  materials. 
We  have  always  a:dvised  the  best  for  the  church,  and 
our  estimates  and  designs  are  arranged  upon  this  basis. 

Have  you  any  questions  to  ask  in  regard  to  your 
church  interior?  It  costs  you  nothing  to  consult  us, 
and  we  can  give  you  information  that  will  be  valuable. 
Correspondence  solicited. 


J.  ^  R.  LAAB, 


Send  for  illustrated 
u     iu    1 — 'c T  59  Carmine  St 

hand-book  of   any  de-  ^^ 


P^rtme^U.  ^Q^y  Yorl^. 


EGG'L  ART. 


ESTABLISHED     1858. 


H.  H.  UPHAM  &  CO. 


MAKERS    OF 


MEMORIAL  'i' 
'i'    TABLETS, 

IN 

Brass,  Bronze,  and  Marble. 


CORRESPONDENCE    INVITED. 


641  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK. 


MEMORIAL  * 
-  WINDOWS 

Sfained  Glass  for  Dwellings. 

CHARLES    BOOTH. 

Church  Furnishings, 

In   Wood,  Metal,  and  Stone. 

Communion  Plate,  Basins,  etc. 

COLOR  DECORATION 

For  Churches  and  Dwellings. 
CHARLES    F.    HOGEMAN. 

OFFICE  : 

Churchman  Building,  47  Lafayette  Place,  New  York 


WORKS  : 


12   Minton   PI.,   Orange,   N.J.,    U.S.A. 

I  15  Gower  St.,   London   W.  C,   Eng. 


CHRISTIAN  ART  INSTITUTE 

Conducted  by  R.  GEISSLER. 
318,  320,  and   322    East   48th    St.,  New  York. 


CHURCH  FURNITURE 

Of  Every  Description. 


WALL  DECORATION 

In  Oil  and  Fresco. 


STAINED  GLASS,  MEMORIAL  WINDOWS, 

FABRICS,   FRINGES,   EMBROIDERIES, 
STONE,   MARBLE,   ANB  METAL  WORK. 


Send  for  Circular. 


ISTOTICE. 

The  rapid  and  unexpected  grouth  of  the  patronage  extended,  compels  us  to  arrange  so  as 
to  obtain  increased  facilities  for  production. 

Our  extensive  Show-roonis  at  the  above  address  are  being  converted  into  additional  work- 
rooms ;  and  as  suitable  and  commodious  quarters  for  other  Show-rooms  could  not  be  obtained 
in  that  immediate  neighborhood,  we  shall  remove 

ON    OR   ABOUT    DECEMBER    i, 

to  the  new.  Jine,  large,  fire-proof  buildings, 

Nos.  52  and   5^   Lafayette    Place,  New  York. 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,   &   CO.'S 

AN  NOUNCJK ISI K  NTS. 

Messrs.  Longmans,  Grekn,  &  Co.,  having  purchased  the  old-established  business  of 
Messrs.  RIVINGTON,  will  in  future  supply  most  of  the  books  hitherto  published  by  tliat 
firm.  Revised  Catalogues  of  Works  in  General  JJterature,  and  Theological  Wcjrks,  are  in 
active  preparation,  and  will  be  sent  when  ready  to  any  address  forwarded  to  15  Last  Si.xttenth 
Street,  New  York,  for  that  purpose. 

CARDINAL  NEWMAN'S  AUTOBIOGRAPHY  AND  CORRESPONDENCE. 
THE  LETTERS  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  O?^  JOHN  HENRY  NEWMAN 
DURING  HIS  LIFE  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH.  With  a  brief  Autobio- 
graphical .Memoir.  Arranged  and  Edited,  at  Cardinal  Newman's  request,  by  the  Editor 
of  the  /.-'/A-r.f  o/  the  Rev.  J.  B.  Mozlcy,  D.D.,  A'eo-/us  Professor  of  DiTinity  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Oxford.     Two  vols.     Crown  8vo.     (In  the  press.) 

Cardinal  Newman  wrote  to  his  sister  in  1863,  saying  :  "It  has  ever  been  a  hobby  of  mine,  though 
perhaps  it  is  a  truism,  not  a  hobby,  that  the  'true  life  of  a  man  is  in  his  letters.'  .  .  .  Not  only 
for  the  interest  of  a  biography,  but  for  arriving  at  the  inside  of  things,  tlie  publication  of  letters  is 
the  true  method.  Biographers  varnish,  they  assign  motives,  they  conjecture  feelings,  they  interpret 
Lord  Burleigh's  nods  ;  but  contemporary  letters  are  facts."  This  book  is  such  a  biography  of  the 
early  years  of  the  Cardinal's  life  as  he  himself  wished  for.  It  contains  an  autobiography,  supple- 
manted  by  abundant  extracts  from  his  correspondence.  It  was  prepared  during  his  life  and  with  his 
sanction . 

WORKS   BY   THE   LATE  CARDINAL   NEWMAN. 

THE    IDEA     OF     A    UNIVERSITY    DE- 
FINED   AND    ILLUSTRATED  <2.5o 
HISTORICAL  SKETCHES.     3  vols.,  each.       2.00 
DISCUSSIONS     AND     ARGUMENTS    on 

\'aii()us  Subjects     .     .  2.00 

AN    ESSAY    ON    THE    DEVELOPMENT 

OF   CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINE 1.25 

CERTAIN    DIFFICULTIES    Felt   by  Angli- 
cans in  Catholic  Teaching  Considered.    Vol.  I.  2.50 

Vol.    II 2.00 

THE  VIA  MEDIA  OF  THE  ANGLICAN 
CHURCH.     Illustrated  in  Lectures,  etc.     2 

vols.,  each z.>ro 

ESSAYS,  Critical  and  Historical.     2  vols.... 2.50 

ESSAYS  on  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  Miracles  1.25 

AN  ESSAY  in  Aid  of  a  Grammar  of  Assent 2.50 

THE  ARIANS  OF  THE  FOURTH  CEN- 
TURY     1.25 

THE    DREAM    OF    GERONTIUS.      i6mo. 

Sewed,  20  cents  ;  cloth.  35 


APOLOGIA  PRO  VITA  SUA        $1.25 

PAROCHIAL    AND    PLAIN    SERMONS. 

8  vols  ,  sold   separately,  eacii  1.75 

FIFTEEN  SERMONS.  Preachid  before  the 
University  of  0.>cford,  between  a.d.   1826  an.d 

•84^ : 1.7s 

SERMONS  BEARING  UPON  SUBJECTS 

OF  THE  DAY 1.75 

SELECTION,  Adipted  to  the  Seasons  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Year,  from  the  Parochial  and 
Plain  SefjHons 

LECTURES  ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 
JUSTIFICATION  

SELECT  TREATISES  OF  ST.  ATHANA- 
SIUS,  in  Controversy  with  the  .Arians.  2 
vols 

VERSES  ON  VARIOUS  OCCASIONS    .  . 

CALLISTA.      A  Tale  of  the  Third  Century    .  . 

THE  PRESENT  POSITION  OF  CATHO- 
LICS IN   ENGLAND 2.50 


•75 


5  00 

1-25 

125 


THE  CHRIST,  THE   SON   OF    GOD.        A    Life   of   Our  Lord  and   Saviour  Jesus 

Christ.  By  the  Ab13e  Constant  Fou.\rd,  Honorary  Cathedral  Canon,  Professor  of  the 
Faculty  of  Theology  at  Rouen,  etc.,  etc.  Translated  from  the  fifth  edition,  with  the 
author's  sanction,  by  George  F.  X.  Gritifith.  With  an  Introduction  by  Caidinal  Manning. 
In  two  volumes,  with  Maps.     Small  Svo.       (Very  shortly.) 

THE  DIVINITY  OF  OUR  LORD  AND  SAVIOUR  JESUS  CHRIST.  Being 
the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1866.  liv  Henry  P.\rry  Liddon,  D.D.,  DC  L  ,  Chancellor 
and  Canon  of  St.  Paul's.  Fourteenth  edition.  With  a  new  Preface  having  reference  to 
Dr.  Martineaii  s  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religio)i.      Crown  Svo.     $2.00. 

THE  STEPS  OF  THE  SUN.  Daily  Readings  of  Prose.  Selected  by  Agnes  Mason. 
i6mo,  cloth,  329  pages,  $1.25.      (Just  ready.) 

LYRA  CONSOLATIONIS.  From  the  Poets  of  the  Seventeenth,  Eighteenth, 
and  Nineteenth  Centuries.  Selected  and  arranged  by  Claudia  Frances  Herna- 
MAN.     Fcp.  Svo,  cloth,  gilt  top,  $2.00.     (Just  ready.) 

The  selection  of  verse  in  this  volume  is  designed  to  comfort  mourners  from  the  first  hours  of  their 
bereavement,  and  is  based  on  those  clauses  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  which  the  Church  contesses  her 
belief  in  her  Lord's  crucifixion,  death,  and  burial,  in  His  resurrection,  ascension,  and  coming  again. 
Poets  of  the  last  three  centuries  have  been  laid  under  contribution,  but  only  when  their  writmgs  fell 
in  with  the  design  of  the  book. 

}tor  sale  by  all  booksellers.     Sent  on  receipt  of  price  by  the  Publishers, 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  15  East  Sixteenth  Street,  NEW  YORK. 


NEW  BOOKS 


Thomas  Whittaker's 
NEW  BOOKS. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  AMERICAN  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH:  From  the  Planting 
of  the  Colonies  to  the  End  of  the  Civil  War.  By  Rev.  S.  D.  McConnell,  D.D. 
400  pages,  octavo,  cloth,  $2.00;  with  gilt  top,  $2.25;  half  calf  or  half  morocco,  $3.00. 

We  congratulate  the  author  on  giving  us  the  most  brilliant  history  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  most  readable,  that  has  ever  appeared.  —  Southern  Churchman. 

GOD  INCARNATE.  The  Bishop  Paddock  Lectures  for  1890,  by  Rt.  Rev.  H.  T.  King- 
don,  D.D.,  Bishop-Coadjutor  of  Fredericton,  N.  B.     8vo,  cloth,  $1.75. 

When  we  say  we  do  not  know  of  a  work  which  within  anything  like  the  small  compass  covers  the 
ground  with  all  equal  thoroughness  of  comprehension  and  clearness  of  statement,  we  are  no  doubt 
saying  a  good  deal,  but  we  think  not  too  much.  —  St.  Andrew's  Cross. 

A  SECOND  SERIES  OF  TUCK'S  "HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  DIFFI- 
CULTIES."    Uniform  with  the  first  series.     8vo,  cloth,  $2.50. 

The  Handbook  of  Biblical  Difficulties  supplies  a  help  which  all  intelligent  and  devout  Bible 
readers  have  long  felt  the  need  of,  —  namely,  a  manual  which  takes  the  various  difficulties  they  meet 
with  in  reading  the  Word  of  Gon,  and  gives  a  reasonable  solution  of  them  in  an  intelligible  manner 
without  evasion  of  that  which  is  difficult  or  which  may  seem  contradictory. 

...  It  supplies  a  distinct  and  widely  felt  want.  —  Christian  Chronicle. 

THE  VOICES  OF  THE  PSALMS.  By  Rt.  Rev.  W.  Pakenham  Walsh,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Ossory.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 

A  careful  and  devout  commentary  upon  the  Psalter,  one  fresh  in  thought  and  expression,  not 
overburdened  with  the  machinery  of  the  newer  criticism,  but  aiming  to  instruct  as  well  as  edify,  and 
withal  put  forth  in  a  popular  form,  —  such  a  work  is  the  subject  of  a  large  desire,  and  such  a  work 
is  The  Voices  of  the  Psalms.  .  .  .  Bishop  Walsh  long  ago  gained  the  reputation  of  an  unusual 
ability  in  clearness  and  adaptability,  and  these  are  the  most  striking  characteristics  of  the  present 
work. —  The  Christian  Union. 

THE  ^A^ORLD  AND  THE  MAN.  Being  the  Baldwin  Lectures  for  1890,  delivered  at 
Ann  Arbor,  Mich.,  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Hugh  Miller  Thompson,  D.D.,  LL.D.  i2mo, 
cloth,  $1.25. 

And  what  a  rich  and  rare  style  he  has  of  putting  his  thoughts  !  Every  line  of  shining  clearness, 
familiar  in  expression,  full  of  nerve,  bears  the  mark  of  ripest  contemplation,  is  stamped  with  the 
fresh,  singular  individuality  of  the  man.  —Living  Church. 


THOMAS    WHITTAKER,    Publisher, 

2  and  3  BIBLE  HOUSE,  NEW  YORK. 


NEW  BOOKS 


KC 


r'~y/ 


U 


MACMILLAN    &    COMPANY'S 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.      With  Notes  by  C.  J.  Vaijchan,  D.D.,  Dean 

of  Llandaff,  Master  of  the  Temple,  umo,  $::.25.  ^*^  A  companion  Vfjlume  to  that 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  of  which  the  seventh  edition  has  lately  been  published. 
Dr.  Vaughan  is  one  of  the  ablest  of  living  scholars  in  the  department  of  exegesis.  His  con- 
tributions during  the  past  forty  years  have  fully  shown  this,  and  his  volumes  on  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans,  the  Philippians,  etc.,  are  highly  esteemed  by  competent  judges  everywhere.  The  present 
volume  is  the  result  of  his  latest  efforts  in  Biblical  studies.  The  exegesis  is  clear,  consistent,  and 
animated  by  the  best  spirit  of  Churchmanship  ;  and  as  the  volume  is  wc;ll  printed  in  gf>od-sizcd  drcclc 
type  and  with  surprising  accuracy,  it  deserves  our  warmest  commc-ndation.  —  Liviitt:;  Church. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  COMPARATIVE  GRAMMAR  OF  THE  SEMITIC 
LANGUAGES.  From  the  papers  of  the  late  William  Wright,  LL.l).,  Professor  of 
Arabic  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.     Edited  by  W.  Robertson  Smith.     8vo,  $3.50. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  YEAR.  Thoughts  in  Verse  for  Sundays  and  Holydays  throughout 
the  Year.     With  a  Memoir  and  Portrait.     Red  lines.     Cloth,  gilt  edges,  $1.50. 

IMITATION  OF  CHRIST.  Four  Books.  By  Thomas  a  Kempls.  With  an  Intro- 
ductory Essay  on  the  authorship  of  the  work,  and  an  engraved  portrait  from  contem- 
porary'sources.     P>.ed  lines.     Cloth,  gilt  edges,  $1.50. 

STUDIA  BIBLICA  ET  ECCLESIASTICA.  Essays  chiefly  in  Biblical  and  Patristic 
Criticism.     By  Members  of  the  University  of  Oxford.     Vol.  II.     Svo,  $3.25. 

CHARLES  KINGSLEY'S  SERMONS.  New  editions.  i2mo.  Uniformly  bound 
in  cloth,  $1.25  each  vol. 

Sermons  for  the  Times. 

Water  of  Life,  and  Other  Sermons. 

Village  Sermons,  and  Town  and  Country  Sermons. 

Sermons  on  National  Subjects,  and  the  King  of  the  Earth. 


Works   of  the   RIGHT   REV.   BROOKE   FOSS  WESTCOTT, 
D.D.,   D.C.L,,    Bishop   of  Durham. 

THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  HEBREWS.     The  Greek,  with  Notes  and  Essays.    Svo, 

$4.00. 

This  noblp  commentary  on  the  subject  of  the  noblest  of  the  Epistles  will  be  welcomed  by  all 
lovers  of  profound  and  accurate  scholarship.  .  .  .  Among  the  choicest  products  of  English  Biblical 
criticism  in  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  — Manchester  Examiner. 

THE  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  JOHN.     The  Greek,  with  Notes  and  Essays.     Second  edition, 

revised.     Svo,  $3-50. 
INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS.     i2mo,  $2.25 
THE    NEW    TESTAMENT    IN    THE    ORIGINAL    GREEK.     The  Text   revised 

by  L    F.  Westcott,  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  Prof.  F.  J.  A.  Hort,^  D.D.      iSmo,  cloth. 

$1.00;  bound  in  leather,  $125;  bound  in  morocco  limp,  gilt  edges,  $1.75. 

Students'  Edition  of  the  above,  with  Lexicon,  in  strong  leather  binding,  $1.90. 


Macmillan's  IS^iEW  COMPLETE  CATALOGUE  tvUl  be  sent  free  by  mail 
to  any  address  on  application. 


MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  112  Fourth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK. 


^^ 

NEW  BOOKS. 

^S 

NEW   THEOLOGICAL    BOOKS, 


LUX  MUNDI.  A  Series  of  Studies  in  the  Religion  of  the  Incarnation.  Edited  by  Rev. 
Charles  Gore,  M.A.,  Principal  of  Pusey  House,  and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford, 
pp.  550.     8vo,  cloth. 

CONTENTS:  — I.  Faith,  Rev.  H.  S'.  Holland,  M.  A.  ;  2.  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  God, 
Rev.  Aubrey  Moore,  M.  A.  ;  3.  The  Problem  of  Pain  :  Its  bearing  on  Faith  in  God,  Rev.  J.  R. 
Illingworth,  M.  A.;  4.  The  Preparation  in  History  for  Christ,  Rev.  E.  S.  Talbot,  D.D.  ;  5.  The 
Incarnation  in  Relation  to  Development,  Rev.  J.  R.  Illingworth;  6.  The  Incarnation  as  the  Basis  of 
Dogma,  Rev.  R.  C.  Moberly,  M.  A. ;  7.  The  Atonement,  Rev.  and  Hon.  Arthur  Lyttelton,  M.  A.  ; 
8.  The  Holy  Spirit  and  Inspiration,  Rev.  C.  Gore,  M.A.  ;  9.  The  Church,  Rev.  W.  Lock,  M.  A.; 
ID.  Sacraments,  Rev.  F.  Paget,  D.  D.  ;  11.  Christianity  and  Politics,  Rev.  W.  J.  R.  Campion,  M.  A.  ; 
12.  Christian  Ethics,  Rev.  R.  L.  Ottley,  M.  A. 

WHAT  IS  CHRIST'S  CHURCH?  CHURCH  OR  CHAPEL?  An  Eirenecoi. 
By  the  Rev.  Joseph  Hammond.      i2mo,  cloth.     $2.00. 

The  most  complete  manual.  We  can  thoroughly  recommend  it  to  tell  with  "devout  Non-conform- 
ists," and  certainly  there  will  be  many  Churchmen  who  may  study  and  keep  it  at  hand  with  profit. 
The  whole  is  very  ably  and  well  done.  —  The  Guardia7i. 

No  one  can  read  Church  or  Chapel  ^  without  a  feeling  of  respect  for  the  writer,  and  few  without 
thinking  better  of  the  Church  which  he  champions.  It  sets  out  the  case  with  a  lucidity  and  a  modera- 
tion that  are  deserving  of  all  praise.      Will  be  found  to  have  great  value.  —  Spectator. 

SUNLIGHT  AND  SHADOW  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  Sermons  preached 
for  the  most  part  in  America.      By  the   Rev.  W.  J.  Knox-Little.     pp.  310.     i2mo,  cloth, 

"  They  cannot  help  interesting  and  inspiring  those  who  read  them." 
A  New  and   Cheaper   Edition  of 
THE   EVIDENTIAL    VALUE     OF    THE     HOLY    EUCHARIST.      By  the   Rev. 
G.  F.  Maclear,  D.  D.,  author  of   A    Class-Book  of  Old  and  New   Testament,  etc.     Second 
Edition,  revised  and  corrected,      pp.  352.      i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 

Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  author  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  A.Cleveland  Coxe,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Bishop  of  Western  New  York.      (Reprinted  by  permission.) 

"  I  have  been  reading  since  Mid-Lent  your  masterly  work  on  The  Hoiy  Eucharist  as  evidence, 
etc. :  and  long  and  lovingly  as  I  have  studied  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  of  our  blessed  Lord,  I 
have  just  closed  this  work  of  yours,  feeling  how  you  have  fieshenec  and  amplified  what  I  knew  before, 
and  how  much  you  have  made  me  know,  which  I  ought  to  have  studied  out  and  discovered  for  myself. 
I  feel  as  if  1  ought  to  begin  all  over  again,  with  new  helps  and  suggestions,  the  study  of  my  Greek 
Testament." 

A    HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION     TO    THE    STUDY    OF    THE    BOOKS 

OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     By  George  Salmon,  D.D.    Fourth  and  cheaper 
edition,     pp.  678.     i2mo,  cloth,  $3.50. 

ILLUSTRATED    NOTES    ON    ENGLISH    CHURCH    HISTORY.     By  the  Rev. 

C.  Arthur  Lane.     2  vols.,  i6mo,  cloth,  40  cents  each. 

Vol.     I.  —  From  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Dawn  of  the  Reformation. 

Vol.  XL  —  The  Reformation  and  Modern  Church  Work. 
_  The  two  volumes  traverse  the   whole   range  of  Church   History  in  Britain.     They  con- 
tain over  two  hundred  illustrations,  including  every  Cathedral  in  England  and  Wales,  and 
many  notable  Abbeys  and  Churches. 

THE  INCARNATION  AS  A  MOTIVE  POWER.     Sermons  by  William  Bright, 

D.  D.,  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.     i2mo,  cloth,  J^i.75. 

An  admirable  volume  from  one  of  the  ablest  living  theologians  in  the  Church  of  England.  ...  It 
is  superfluous  to  commend  such  a  book  as  this ;  it  needs  no  praise  at  our  hands.  —  Living  Church. 

The  above  may  be  obtained  from  any  bookseller,  or  will  be  sent  free  by  mail  on  receipt  of  price. 


E.  &  J.  B.  YOUNG  &  CO., 

COOPER    UNION,    FOURTH   AVENUE,    NEW  YORK. 


RECENT   PUBLICATIONS 


OF   THK 


LONDON  SOCIETY  FOR  PROMOTING  CHRISTIAN  KNOWLEDGE, 


THE  MONUMENTAL  HISTORY  OF 

THE  BRITISH  CHURCH.  lly  J.  Ro.mii.ly 
Allen.  With  Uluslralions.  i6mo,  clolh,  5«-25- 
In  this  volume  is  collected  together  a  mass  of  infor- 
mation on  the  archsological  side  of  the  question  as  to 
how  and  when  Christianity  was  first  introduced  into 
the  British  Isles,  giving  new  light  on  the  story  of  our 
Mother  Church 

THE  TITLE-DEEDS  OF  THE 
CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  By  T  P.  Gakniek, 
M.A.     i6mo,  cloth,  $1.25. 

An  historic  vindication  of  the  position  and  claims 
that  the  Church  of  England  is  the  true  lineal  descend- 
ant of  the  first  fellowship  of  the  disciples  on  the  Day 
of  Pentecost. 

ST.     BERNARD,    Abbot    of     Clairvaux, 
AD    1091   1153  .   By  the  Rev.  S.J.  Eales.     i6mo, 
cloth,  80  cents. 
This  volume  is  the   last  issue  of  The  Fathers  for 

English  Readers,  and  is  a  clear  and  interesting  account 

of  the  "  last  of  the  Fathers,"  and  of  his  great  influence 

over  the  age  in  which  he  lived. 

A   SKETCH    OF    THE  HISTORY  OF 

EUROPE,  chiefly  International.    By  A.  R.  Ropes, 

M.A.     i6ino,  cloth,  $1.00. 

A  sketch  of  the  history  of  Europe  as  a  system  of 
States  from  the  time  when  the  Roman  Empire  gave 
that  history  unity  down  to  the  present  day. 

THE  EVIDENTIAL  VALUE  OF  THE 
HOLY  EUCHARIST.  By  the  Rev.  G.  F. 
Maclkar,  D.  D.  Author  of  Class-Book  0/  Old 
and  New  Testament,  etc.  Second  Edition,  revised 
and  corrected.  i2ino,  pages  352,  cloth,  $1.50. 
Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  Author  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  D.D,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Western 
New  York.     (Reprinted  by  permission.) 

I  have  been  reading,  since  Mid-Lent,  your  mas- 
terly work  on  'The  Holy  Eucharist'  as  evidence,  etc., 
and  long  and  lovingly  as  I  have  studied  the  Passion  and 
Resurrection  of  our  blessed  Lord,  I  have  just  closed 
this  work  of  yours,  feeling  how  you  have  freshened 
and  amplified  what  I  knew  before,  and  how  much  yoti 
have  jnade  me  know  which  1  ought  to  have  studied  or.t 
and  discovered  for  myself.  I  feel  as  if  I  ought  to  be- 
gin all  over  again,  with  new  helps  and  suggestions,  the 
study  of  my  Greek  Testament. 

THE  CHURCH  CATECHISM:  with 
Notes  by  E.  M.  Illustrated  with  twelve  colored  and 
many  wood-cut  engravings.    iSmo,  illuminated  paper 


boards,  40  cents 


NATURAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  ANI- 
MAL   KINGDOM.      Ad.ipt.d   from  the  (;crman 
of  ProlesMjr  Von  .Schubert  by  VV.  F.  KiRbV.  1-   K..S. 
Illustrated  with  91  full-page  colored  plates  containing 
nearly  850  figures  of  animal  life  and  120  pages  of 
descriptive  matter,  interspersf^d  with  numerous  wood- 
cuts.    3  vols,  folio,  %■},  00  per  vol 
Vol.  I.     MAMMALIA:  31  colored  plates,  includ- 
ing 171  figures. 
Vol.  II.     BIRDS  :  30  colored  plates,  including   195 
figures. 
Vol.  III.     REPTILES,    AMPHIBIA,    FISHES, 
INSECTS,   etc. :    30  colored  plates,  in- 
cluding 480  figures. 
The  work  will  also  be  supplied,  the  ■?  vols,   in  i, 
handsomely  half  bound,  cloth  sides,  red  edges,  $8.50. 

SCRIPTURE    PICTURE-BOOK.     The 

Story  of  the  Old  Testament.  Printed  in  large  type. 
Numerous  full-page  and  other  illustrations.  Small 
4to,  limp  cloth,  50  cents,  cloth  boards,  illuminated 
side,  led  edges,  80  cents. 

TWELVE     TINY     TALES.      By   Mrs. 

MoLHSwoRTH.  .\  charming  series  of  books,  with 
colored  illustrations  by  Harrison^  Weir  and  W.  J 
Morgan.  Small  4to,  cloth,  side  in  gold  and  colors, 
$1  00. 

THE    PETRINE    CLAIMS.     A  Critical 

Inquiry    by    Richard     Frederick     Littledale, 

LL.D.,  D.C.L.     i6mo.  cloth,  S2.00. 

This  \9  the  most  unanswerable  book  ever  written 
on  the  Roman  controversy.  It  gives  Roman  definitions 
and  Roman  authorities,  and  by  them  unanswerably 
proves  that  there  has  not  been'  a  legal  Pope  for  400 
years.  Let  them  answer  this  —  if  thev  can.  —  The 
Rev.  J.  H.  Hopkins,  D  D. 

TWO     EXCELLENT     BOOKS     FOR 
THE     STUDY    OF     CHURCH     HISTORY. 
Illustrated  Notes  on  English  Church  History.     By 
the  Rev.  C.  Arthur  Lane.    2  vols.,  i6mo,  cloth, 
40  cents  each. 
Vol.  I      FROM  THE   EARLIEST  TIMES  TO 
THE     DAWN    OF     THE    REFOR- 
MATION. 
Vol.  II.     THE    REFORMATION    AND    MOD- 
ERN   CHURCH    WORK. 
The  two  volumes  traverse  the  whole  range  of  Church 
History  in  Britain.     They  contain  over  200  illustrations 
including  every  Cathedral  in   England  and  Wales,  and 
many  notabl    Abbeys  and  Churches. 

A    STORY    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF 

ENGLAND.  Vol.  II.  Uhisirated.  i6mo,  cloth, 
60  cents. 


The  above  may  be  obtained  frovt  any  bookseller,  or  will  be  sent  free  by  mail  on  receift  of  price,  by 

E.  &  J.  B.  YOUNG  &  CO.. 

COOPER    UNION,    FOURTH    AVENUE,    NEW  YORK. 


REiFERENGE  B00KS. 


ENCICLOPIEDIA  FOR  SELF- EDUCATORS. 


Johnson's  Universal  Cyclopedia  has  long  enjoyed  an  enviable  reputation  foi 
comprehensiveness  and  correctness.  To  enable  it  to  meet  the  demand  for  the  latest 
obtainable  data  on  the  subjects  treated,  the  publishers  have  prepared  a  new  and 
revised  edition,  giving  the  most  careful  attention  to  every  detail.  Of  the  eight 
thousand  articles  contained  in  the  volumes,  one  hundred  and  fifty  were  written  by 
the  editors-in-chief.  President  Barnard,  of  Columbia  College,  and  Prof.  A.  H. 
Guyot,  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey.  Eminent  specialists  have  edited  the  various 
scientific  and  literary  departments,  men  whose  names  signed  to  the  articles  are  a 
guarantee  of  their  accuracy.  In  biography  the  volumes  are  especially  rich,  three 
hundred  American  names  appearing,  and  four  hundred  foreign.  The  industrial 
arts  come  next  in  the  amount  of  space  occupied,  sixty-two  subjects  being  treated 
under  that  head.  The  departments  of  public  and  civil  law,  in  charge  of  Presidents 
Woolsey  and  Dwight,  are  particularly  valuable.  Astronomy,  botany,  geography, 
history,  medicine,  music,  mythology,  physics,  politics,  and  zoology  each  receive 
full  attention.  There  is  an  entire  avoidance  of  the  expression  of  critical  opinions, 
thus  keeping  it  within  the  limits  which  were  set  for  it,  as  simply  a  book  of  facts. 
This  vast  amount  of  material  is  well  arranged  with  reference  to  saving  the  time  of 
the  reader,  a  praiseworthy  feature  being  the  many  sub-divisions  of  subjects,  by  whicli 
is  avoided  the  necessity  of  reading  the  whole  of  a  long  article  when  but  one  point  is 
sought.  The  maps  and  illustrations  are  many  and  excellent.  Taken  as  a  whole, 
the  Cyclopaedia  is  as  nearly  perfect  as  the  best  work  of  its  scholarly  editors  and  con- 
tributors could  make  it. — The  Chauiauquan, 

From  the  Rt.  Rev.  F.  D.  Huntington,  S.T.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Central 
New   York: 

"  So  many  of  the  editors,  associate  editors  and  special  contributors  of  Johnson's 
Universal  Cyclopedia,  are  known  to  me  personally  as  scholars  and  writers  in  their 
several  departments,  that  I  have  no  hesitation  in  certifying  to  the  great  value  and 
unquestionable  accuracy  of  the  work  as  a  whole,  though  I  have  been  able  to  give  it 
only  a  cursory  examination.  The  scope  of  the  undertaking  goes  much  beyond  that 
of  any  of  the  class  that  I  am  acquainted  with.  I  have  exchanged  my  subscription 
for  the  volumes  of  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  as  far  as  published,  even,  for  Job.: 
son's." 


.A.J.JOHNSON    &   CO.,   Publishers, 
//  Great  Jones  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


WORCESTER'S. 

THE  GREAT  DICTIONARY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE 

-y-HE  Standard  Authority  i„  u.e  i„  American   Schools  and  Colleges;  American  Ora.ors 
i.       W  r,  ers,  Poets,  and  Statesmen,  people  of  edncalion,  and  all  the  leading  American  news- 

nsToTwlr-""'"';,''"''  °'  ""^  '"°^'  ''"'"""  ■™"  "'  "-  >'^>-'>  be  named  who  make 

use  of  Worckstkr's  Unabridged  Diciionary. 

IT    CONTAINS    THOUSANDS    OF    WORDS    NOT    TO    BE    FOUND 
IN    ANY    OTHER    DICTIONARY. 

The  A^e'ia  York  Tributie  of  March  26,  1890,  says  :  — 

nnn.-'J*"^  ^?""'  ""f  '^'^'^  ^°'  ^^^''"  ^''^''  "'^'^  Worcester's  as  its  own  authority  in  spelling  and  pro- 
use  ow"*  ^^'T^'':  'r^\  ""Z  '"^'  '^^P^'-'  ^-^  "^"  "^  ^  ereat  nn.ltitude  of  other  pubHcatio'^make" 
ence   wloX T.  I^^'''  \"^  •''  '^'  ^'"'''  P"'^'''^^^^^"  '^  ^^^^  '-^^^^  American  dictionary   n  exist- 

dkt  ^nnH  to  our  readers  unhes.tat.ngly.     One  word  ought  to  be  said  about  the  cheap  reprints  of  old 

diet  onaues,  on  wh.ch  l.e  copyrights  have  expired.  No  American  citizen  would  want  one  of  those  ant^ 
quated  volumes  u.  tlie  house.  They  contain  a  great  number  of  errors  in  spelling.  Thev  do  not  have  the 
n  w  words  or  the  new  defimfons.     The  only  dictionary  worth  having  is  the  unabridged  (Worcester  s)^ 


A 


CHAMBERS'S    ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

l/o/s.  A.  //.,  ///.,  /K,  and  I/.  Ready. 

ENTIRELY    NEW   EDITION,    REVISED   AND    REWRITTEN. 

/-A  ^^^.^w  Tt^y^  ""^  Universal  Knowledge.  Edited  and  Published  under  the  Auspices 
i  A^  of  W  &  R.  Chambers,  Edinburgh,  and  J.  B.  Lippincott  Company,  Philadelphia, 
lo  be  completed  in  ten  volumes.  Issued  at  intervals  of  a  few  months.  Price,  per  vol.: 
cloth,  ^3.00;  cloth,  uncut,  $3.00;  sheep,  $4.00;  half  morocco,  $4.50. 

Of  the  many  books  of  its  kind  that  have  been  published  in  the  English  language,  this  is  bv  far  the 
nl'  in°"r""  Tu  .  ""^  u  .^^^.^'^^^b'^;  ^"d  in  its  handsome  new  type,  its  large  page,  and'its  finer 
pnntmg,  to  say  nothmg  of  its  bnngmg  every  theme  of  which  it  treats  down  to  date,  the  work  in  its  revised 
torm  cannot  be  replaced  m  its  usefulness  in  a  working  library.  —  Bos/on  Globe. 

No  better  book  of  the  kind  exists  for  household  use  than  Chambers's  Encyclopedia,  which  is  now 
commg  out  anew  m  enlarged  form.  Its  articles  are  clearly  and  pleasingly  written,  and  are  never  too  tech- 
nical or  abstruse.  It  ought  to  be  in  every  family  and  office,  for  it  will  be  found  of  daily  use.  -  Cincinuati 
Comtnerctnl  Gazette. 

Whatever  other  cyclopaedic  literature  may  be  produced  in  the  vears  to  come,  we  do  not  expect  to  be 
able  to  dispense  with  Chambers's.  —  New  York  Observer. 

Tlie  price  is  such  as  to  place  this  valuable  work  within  the  reach  of  almost  everv  one  who  cares 
enough  tor  the  means  of  knowledge  to  spend  a  little  upon  their  possession.  -  Nexv  York  Tribune. 

i  he  list  of  staff  writers  and  special  contributors  to  this  edition  is  unsurpassed,  even  by  the  great 
hri/an?uca,  and  for  people  of  average  learning  and  moderate  means  this  promises  to  be,  when 'completed, 
tlie  most  satisfactory  book  of  reference  of  its  kind.  —  New  York  E.-> 


•.xaminer. 


Specwien  pages  and  testimonials  of  either  of  the  above  luorks  mailed  free  on  application. 
FOR    SALE    BY    ALL    BOOKSELLERS. 

J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT   COMPANY,  Publishers, 

715   &    717    MARKET   STREET,   PHILADELPHIA. 


€lje  Clitirrli  ^tmi 


THE   CHURCH    REVIEW, 

Kor    1891. 

The  Church  Review  will  be  published  quarterly  during  i8gi,  in  the  months 
of  January,  April,  July,  and  October.  Each  quarterly  issue  forms  a  com- 
plete volume  of  320  pages  of  text  and  52  pages  of  advertising. 

TERMS: — Library  Edition  (each  quarterly  issue  bound  in  cloth),  $5.00  a  year  in 
advance.  Paper  covers,  $4.00  a  year  in  advance.  The  price  of  a  single  copy, 
library  edition,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.25. 

The  Church  Review  was  founded  in  April,  1848,  and  is  the  leading  periodical 
of  the  Anglo-American  Church.  The  American  Bishops  (fifty-nine,  all  that  were 
present  at  the  General  Convention  of  1883),  in  commending  the  Review  to  Church- 
men, say;  "At  the  head  of  our  current  Church  literature  stands  the  Church  Review 
...  It  is  as  comprehensive  in  its  tone  as  the  Church  itself.  All  schools  of  thought 
that  may  lawfully  claim  recognition  are  welcome  to  its  pages.  The  most  vital  ques- 
tions of  the  day  have  been  discussed  by  it  with  dignity,  learning,  and  commanding 
ability."  During  the  past  ten  years  of  the  present  editorial  management  its  standard 
of  scholarship  in  the  field  of  religious  journalism  has  been  gradually  raised,  until  to-day 
it  undoubtedly  stands  at  the  head  of  religious  periodical  literature  in  this  country.  It 
does  not  confine  its  topics  for  discussion  to  religious  questions,  but  considers  the  great 
social,  intellectual,  and  philosophical  problems  of  the  age.  Questions  not  strictly 
within  the  province  of  theology  are  treated  by  the  most  competent  writers,  whether 
or  not  they  are  members  of  the  Anglican  Communion.  Thus  it  claims  to  represent 
not  only  the  Anglo-American  Church  in  the  domain  of  religion  and  theology,  but  also 
the  moral  and  intellectual  side  of  American  life  and  thought.  It  reviews  more  books 
of  real  worth  in  the  various  departments  of  literature  than  any  other  one  periodical, 
either  secular  or  religious,  in  the  United  States.  This  department  of  the  Review 
has  received  the  highest  commendation  from  the  religious  and  secular  press,  and 
from  the  leading  scholars  of  this  country  and  England. 

As  each  issue  is  a  volume  of  large  proportions,  specimen  copies  cannot  be  sent 
out  free,  but  upon  application  a  copy  will  be  sent  for  examination  to  be  returned  if 
the  person  making  the  request  does  not  become  a  subscriber. 

Address  all  communications  to 


THE   CHURCH    REVIEW  CO., 

I  AND  3  UxioN  Square,  New  York. 


SEND   10c.  IN    STAMPS    FOR   THREE  WEEKS    TRIAL. 

Public  Opinion 

Is  an  attractive  lueehly  publication  of  36  pages,  and  the  only  one  in  America 
giving  a  broad,  well-classified,  and  perfectly  unbiassed 

DIGEST  OF  THE  CURRENT  THOUGHT  OF  THE  WORLD, 


as  expressed  by  the  Leading  Reviews,  Magazines,  and  Newspapers. 


^  s 

2  -^ 

.2  ^ 

it   s 

<^  ;3 
^1 

in     <^ 

O     ^ 

0) 
Qi     O 

t^   is 

rt    O 

o-= 

O  CO 


•-^  H 


Ctf   o 
^  CO 

O    i-, 
>^  O 

.&  §  S 


o 

W 

r+" 

M 

rt- 

0 

i_^ 

fD 
t3 

•-h 

rt 

rt- 

(R 

•I 

rt- 

0 

(D 

r+ 

CR 

rt- 

•1 

0 

Di 

«> 

J? 

rt- 

•-!• 

rt 

M 

(t> 

0 

& 

d 

!U 

^ 

^ 

OQ 

0 

P 

1— I 

a 

^ 

£L 

B 

t— • 

rt- 

01 

§ 

5- 

O 

Its  corps  of  editors  and  translators  read  carefully  all  the  principal  daily  papers  of  the  nation,  and  the  maga- 
zines, reviews,  and  prominent  weeklies  of  this  country  and  Europe.  From  this  great  mass  of  contemporaneous 
matter  the  most  noteworthy  articles  and  opinions  upon  topics  chietly  occupying  public  attention  in  the  fields  of 

POLITICS,  SOCIOLOGY,  SCIENCE,  FINANCE,  RELIGION,  LITERATURE,  AND  ART, 

are  gathered  into  PUBLIC   OPINION,  and  so  arranged  that  the  reader  may  catch  the  trend  of  public  thought 
with  but  a  slight  expenditure  of  time,  and  at  a  cost  of  a  fraction  over  o   CENTS  A   WEEK. 

Public  Opinion  is  in  the  tenth  volume  of  its  successful  existence.  It  is  taken  by  many  thousands  of  the 
most  intelligent  people.  Its  circulation  is  world-wide,  and  its  popularity  universal.  Its  neutrality  in  all  things  has 
never  been  questioned. 

L.  S.  METCALF,  Editor  "The  Forum,"  says  :  Formerly,  to  keep  informed  of  the  drift  of  editorial 
views,  I  was  obliged  to  read  regularly  a  considerable  number  of  newspapers  ;  now  I  rely 
almost  entirely  upon  PUBLIC  OPINION,  and  obtain  the  information  I  need  with  the  ex- 
penditure of  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  time. 

Rev.  JAMES  McCOSH.  D.D.,  LL.D.,  says :  The  best  journal  existing  for  those  who  have  not 
money  to  buy  or  time  to  read  a  great  number  of  newspapers. 

Hon.  "WILLIAM  T.   HARRIS,  U.S.  Com.  Education,  says  :  It  ought  to  circulate  a  million  a  week. 

HARPER'S  WEEKLY:  Whoever  wishes  to  know  the  movement  of  public  opinion  will  find  it 
happily  summarized  in  this  publication. 

BOSTON  TRANSCRIPT  says:  The  large  circulation  of  PUBLIC  OPINION  is  one  of  the  surest 
signs  of  as  high  civilization  in  the  United  States. 

Rev,  CHARLES  F.  DEEMS,  D.D.,  says:  If  I  could  take  but  one  paper,  it  would  be  PUBLIC 
OPINION.     If  I  took  a  hundred,  I  should  still  need  it. 

TO  BE  A  READER  OF  PUBLIC  OPINION  IS  TO  BE  WELL  INFORMED. 

SEND   lOc.   EOJt  3    WEEKS'    TRIAL,   SUBSCJtirTION. 

If  you  are  not  already  a  subscriber  to  PUBLIC  OPINION,  send  lo  cents  in  stamps  for  three  weeks'  trial. 
Yearly  subscription,  $3  per  year.     Subscription  to  January  i,  1891,  free  to  those  who  subscribe  for  one  year. 

Mention  Church  Review  JHE    PUBLIC    OPINION    CO.,    WashlngtOH,    D.C. 


^^    PERIODICALS,    ^m 


A  RELIGIOUS  FAMILY  PAPER, 

PUBLISHED    WEEKLY    AT 

No.  524  WALNUT  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA, 


EDITORS : 

Rev.  F.  W.  CONRAD,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Prof.  V.  L.  CONRAD,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

WITH   A    LARGE    NUMBER   OF   ABLE    AND    POPULAR   WRITERS    AS   CONTRIBUTORS. 


The  Lutheran  Observer  is  the  oldest,  the  largest* 
and  most  influential  journal  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  the  United  States.  Its  circulation  greatly  exceeds 
that  of  all  the  other  English  Lutheran  Church  papers 
in  this  country. 

TERMS    CASH  IN  AB VANCE. 

One  copy,  per  annum,  including  postage $2.00 

One  copy,  six  months 1.00 

On  trial,  for  three  months .50 

No  new  names  are  entered  on  the  subscription  book  without 
the  first  payment  in  advance. 


Remittances  must  be  made  in  Post-Office  Money  Orders,  Bank  Checks,  or 
Drafts.  If  these  cannot  be  obtained,  send  the  money  in  a  Registered  Letter. 
Postal  Notes  are  not  safe  for  transmission  by  mail.  All  postmasters  are 
obliged  to  register  letters  when  requested. 


Organs  AND  PiANQS-l^^ 


MASON    &    HAMLIN 

—O  ROANS. 


TESTIMONIALS    FROM 
Theo.    Thomas.     John  K.  Paifie.      S.  B.  Mills,      li'ut.  L.  Totnlius.       Geo.  W.  Morgan       Sa)nU  P    Warren. 
Dudley  Buck.     Eugene  Thayer.     P.  S.  Gihnore.     Franz  Liszt.     Saint-Saens     Ch.  Gounod-    Campanini 
Christine  Nilsson.     Marie  Rose.     Dr.  Stainer.    Johann  Strauss.     X  Scfiarwenka. 


Highest  Honors  at  every  Great  V/orld's  Exhibition, 

PARIS,    1867,    TO    LONDON,    1885,    INCLUSIVE. 


FASHIONABLE    MODELS. 
1  ISZT    ORGAN.  — The  finest  and   most   powerfully  toned  Reed   Organ  made. 
The  first  one  made  expressly  for  the  late  Abbd  Liszt.     The  Oxg?,^ par  excellence 
for   the  drawing-room,  and  used  largely  in  churches  and  chapels.      With  one 
and  two  manuals. 

"PHREE-MANUAL  and  32-feet  PEDAL  ORGAN.  — The  most  complete  Reed 
Organ  Manufactured.  Contains  32  stops,  composition  pedals,  etc.  Used  in 
Westminster  Abbey. 

QUEEN'S   MODEL.  — So  called  from  the  fact  that  it  was  made  from  furnished 
^     specifications   expressly  for,  and  sold   to.  Her   Majesty,  Victoria,  Queen   of 
England. 

£OLI AN  HARP  ORGAN.  —  This  style  combines  the  effect  of  a  stringed  orches- 
tra with  the  organ.  It  is  possible  to  produce  the  undulating  effect  of  stringed 
instruments  with  the  one   hand,  while  the  other  gives  the  organ  tone. 


An  Illustrated  Catalogue  of  over  100  Styles,  suitable  for      - 

-        -        -        Churches,  Chapels,  Sunday  Schools,  etc.,  sent  free  on  application. 


PIANOS 


The  improved  method  of  piano  construction,  invented  by  Mason  &  Hamlin  in 
1882,  has  been  fully  proved,  many  excellent  experts  pronouncing  it  the  greatest 
improvement  in  pianos  of  the  century. 

Send  for  full  information. 

MASON  &  HAMLIN  ORGAN  AND  PIANO  CO 

BOSTON.    NEW  YORK.    CHICAGO. 


Organs  and   Pianos  sold  for  Cash,   Easy  Payments,  and   Rented. 


EGGT  ART. 


I^OYAL  Bavarian  Establishment. 


V 

/fs^ 

V 

L^\ 

/M^S--*^ 

\ 

/i5l^?l 

1       Mtlf 

I'^^l 

^'^'^^^rar 

!     %^Mi^ 

/■WjSvIr'^-^^"  " 

fi  i 

J  r  115^^355?^    ^2»j^ 

i    '^^^  '\  '^BHH^J' 

fS-f-     !l. 

M 

'?»#! 

Ww^ 

•I  i       -                            •      ,    £             -             ■    • 

'h,  -^^4 

r.ii 

'1 

1 

-    «     ^^su  v/^:- 

^  "ii 

!!?%    '\:^-^ 

IKIK^ 

ri^ 

ll»->.  ■•',   ■%.' 

*.-i',^ 

^''^  X . 

rv^# 

s2 

t^^BSm^l 

jl^^pSSI 

^■ek..«^^^i 

1    imm^ 

.  i    ^'f.- ,     II  r„lMlu-\,.v.\.;    -....    . 

1                          i'TTr  :     A.,,?,^,;.— 

Siu!!* 

MAYER  &  CO. 

MUNICH,      LONDON, 

AND 

NEW    YORK. 


a^cmottal 


(KHinUotDjs, 


Statuary 

in 
anti  Etxxci  Cotta, 


Executed  in  our 
CMiiniib  Studios 
by  ^Jliiists  of  flie 
T^ojal  z/lcademy. 


HANKEY     MEMORIAL     WINDOW, 


BRANCH     LIBRARY,    COLUMBIA    CQLLEGF      124    W      230    STREET,     NEW    YORK. 


DESIGNS   SUBMITTED. 


Church    Ri:union 


DISCUSSED 


ON   THE 


BASIS  OF  THE  LAMBETH  PROPOSITIONS 

OF   1888 


%eprinted  from  The  Church  Review  for  April 
and  October,  18 go 


NEW  YORK 
THE  CHURCH  REVIEW  CO. 

I  AND  3  Union  Square 
1890 


Copyright,  1S90, 
By  The  Church  Review  Co. 


mnibersits  Press : 
John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridge. 


TO 

E\)t  iSisljops;  aisscmbleti  in  General  Conbention, 

AT  CHICAGO,  IN   OCTOBER,  1886, 

AND   AT 

LAMBETH   PALACE,   LONDON,  IN  JULY,  18S8, 
TH/S   VOLUME 

IS   RESPECTFULLY   DEDICATED    BY  THE   EDITOR 
OF  THE   CHURCH   REVIEW. 


127909 


P  R  E  FAC  E. 


CHURCH  REUNION  is  an  object  worthy  of  the  best  efforts 
of  all  who  call  themselves  Christians.  It  is  evident  from 
the  consideration  of  the  subject  in  the  following  pages  by  men 
who  will  be  recognized  in  all  parts  of  America  as  among  the 
foremost  leaders  of  their  respective  Communions,  that  we  can 
only  hope  for  Church  Reunion  on  the  lines,  and  as  the  result,  of 
historical  investigation.  It  is  necessary  that  there  should  be  a 
common  basis  proposed,  and  a  full  understanding  as  to  how 
much  of  such  basis  would  be  accepted  by  all,  upon  due  proof 
of  its  being  essential.  The  readers  of  this  volume  will  not  be 
in  doubt  on  either  of  these  points. 

We  have  accomplished  all  we  had  in  mind  when  we  invited 
these  distinguished  leaders  of  religious  thought  to  discuss  the 
subject  of  Church  Reunion  in  the  Church  Review.  It  was 
but  natural  that  the  articles  should  be  put  in  the  convenient 
form  of  a  single  volume.  In  this  form  they  should  have  a  wide 
circulation  and  careful  reading  among  and  by  all  thoughtful 
Christians. 

But  little  is  known  of  the  great  Holy  Eastern  or  Greek  Church, 
as  it  is  sometimes  called,  and  we  thought  it  would  add  to  the  inter- 
est and  value  of  this  volume  to  add  thereto  an  article  on  the  Holy 
Eastern  Church  by  the  Hon.  Francis  J.  Parker,  which  appeared 
in  the  January  issue  (1890)  of  the  Church  Revie\v.  We  do 
not  agree  with  Mr.  Parker  in  his  views  on  the  Filioqice^  and  he  is 


VI 


Preface, 


at  variance  with  the  doctors  of  the  Anglican  Church.  A  man 
for  whom  the  whole  Anglican  Communion  has  great  respect, 
wrote  us  on  learning  of  our  intention  to  add  this  article 
to  the  volume,  that  he  holds  that  "we  are  theologically  right, 
and  that  our  authorized  doctrine  and  the  authorized  doctrine  of 
the  Orthodox  East  does  not  differ  on  this  point  We  have  an 
incorrect  text,  and  historically  we  are  in  the  wrong.  But  I 
believe  with  Dr.  Pusey  and  Dr.  Liddon  that  for  us  to  remove 
the  Filioque  under  existing  circumstances  would  shake  the  faith 
of  many  of  our  people  in  other  articles  of  the  Creed.  They 
need  to  know  more  before  it  is  done."  But  Mr.  Parker  gives  a 
vast  amount  of  information  that  is  not  to  be  found  elsewhere 
within  the  limits  of  a  single  volume. 

If  the  Anglican  Church  addresses  herself  chiefly  to  our 
Protestant  brethren,  it  is  also  true,  as  Bishop  Coxe  has  pointed 
out,  that  Church  Reunion  with  the  Church  of  Rome  can  only 
come  when  she  is  ready  to  restore  the  Historic  Episcopate  to 
its  rightful  place  in  the  Church.  For  that  reason  we  have  also 
added  an  article  in  review  of  the  late  Dr.  Littledale's  great  work 
on  the  "  Petrine  Claims,"  by  Dr.  John  Henr}^  Hopkins.  In  this 
article  we  have  the  advantage  of  the  views  of  the  two  most 
celebrated  controversialists  on  the  subject  of  the  Papacy  that 
this  century  has  produced. 

We  send  this  volume  out,  hoping  and  believing  that  it  will 
incite  many  to  a  careful  examination  of  the  questions  that  now 
divide  numbers  of  our  fellow-Christians. 

Henry  Mason  Baum, 
Editor  of  The  CJutrch  Review. 


New  York,  November,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


C!}urrl}  iSnmion  on  tljc  Basis  praposcti  tiu  tljc 
iLamtrtlj  (^Tonfcrcncc, 

\J'  PACE 

Lambeth  Conference  Report,  Encyclical  Letter ,, 

^Definite  Teaching  of  the  Faith j^ 

(Home  Reunion 

14 

'Relation  to  the  Scandinavian  Church 


15 


Is 


vTo  Old  Catholics  and  Others      .... 

0 

<^o  the  Eastern  Churches j^ 

-Authoritative  Standards j^ 

laeportg  of  Commtttfcs, 

ome  Reunion 


6 

«<§candinavians,  —  Old  Catholics ,5 

Eastern  Churches 

Authoritative  Standards  .    ... 

3d 

STfje  Baste  for  Cfjurri}  janmton  propose  lio  tljc 

ILamlJctl)  Conference  of  IS 88 40 

'^  Prof .  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D  D.    ...  .r 

4' 

"/Prof.  Egbert  C.  Smyth,  D.D 

tR^v.  Edward  T.  Horn,  D.D 77 

Rev.  Robert  S.  MacArthur,  D.D ,  82 

Prof.  William  F.  Mann,  D.D 02 

Prof.  E.  F.  Wolf,  D.D ^^ 

Rev.  William  V.  Kelley,  D.D 10- 


Vlll 


Contents. 


PAGE 


'Prof.  George  R.  Crooks,  D.D 112 

Rev.  Henry  F.  Van  Dyke,  D.D 117 

vRev.  Thomas  Armitage,  D.D 125 

.Rev.  Henry  M.  Dexter,  D.D 129 

.Rev.  James  McCosh,  D.D.,  LL.D 132 

Rev.  John  Hall,  D.D.,  LL.D 134 

,Rev.  Lyman  Abbott,  D.D 136 

-Rev.  J.  M.  Buckley,  D.D 138 

Rev.  Howard  Crosby,  D.D.,  LL.D 139 

Rev.  Talbot  W.  Chambers,  D.D 140 

"Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  LL.D 141 

\Rev.  William  M.  Taylor,  D.D 142 

vjCev.  Edward  B.  Coe,  D.D i43 


Historic  Presbyterians. 

Kt.  Rev.  Arthur  Cleveland  Coxe,  D.D.,  LL.D 145 

The  Historic  Episcopate. 

Rt.  Rev.  Willimti  Croswell  Doane,D.D.,  LL.D 158 

What    is    Meant    by  the  "Historic  Episcopate"   in   the    Resolu- 
tions of  the  House  of  Bishops  in  18S6  and  the  Lambeth 
Conference  of  1888. 
Rt.  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.CL 165 

The  Historic  Episcopate. 

Rt.  Rev.  George  F.  Seymour,  D.D  ,  LL.D 174 

The  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Unity. 

Rev.  William  D.  Wilson,  D.D.,  LL.D 191 

The  Faith  which  was  once  for  all  Delivered. 

Fro/.  Joseph  F.  Garrison,  D.D 220 

The  Holy  Eucharist  the  Lord's  Eirenicon. 

Prof.  y.  y.  Elmendorf,  D.D 231 

The  Validity  of  Non-Episcopal  Ordination. 

Rev.  Thomas  F.Gailor,M. A.,  S.T.B 244 

The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  England  on  Episcopal  Ordination. 

Rru.  Arthur  Lowndes 259 


Contents. 


IX 


Bishop  Lightfoot  on  the  Historic  Episcopate.  ^"^^ 

Rev.  Thomas  F.  Gailor,  M. A.,  S.T.B _ 

The  Nicene  Creed  as  the  Sufficient  Statement  of  the  Christian 
Faith. 
Prof.  Frederick  W.  Davenport,  S.T.D .,.,0 

"Three  Points." 

Rn<.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  S.T.D 

The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

Hon.  Francis  J.  Parker -.g 

The  Petrtne  Claims. 

Rev.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  S.  T.D ^3- 


MACMILLAN    &    COMPANY^S 

^  Publications  ^ 

Works  by  the  RIGHT  REV.   J.   B.   LIGHTFOOT,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D., 

Late  Bishop  of  Durham. 

ESSAYS  ON  THE  WORK  ENTITLED  SUPERNATURAL  RELIGION.    8vo, 

$2.50. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  thoroughness  with  which  the  task  of  ex- 
posing the  inaccuracy  and  the  sophistry  of  Sitpernat2iral  Religioji  has  been  accomplished.  Those 
interested  in  the  subject  must  consult  the  book  itself,  which  they  will  find  a  work  of  triumphant 
scholarship  from  the  hand  of  an  expert,  and  in  doing  so  they  will  also  find  that  apart  from  the  con- 
troversy involved,  it  has  an  independent  value  as  a  synopsis  of  patristic  opinions.  —  Churchman. 

Every  earnest  student  of  the  Christian  evidences  will  feel  grateful  to  Dr.  Lightfoot,  not  only 
for  his  championship  of  the  truth  when  assailed  in  the  book  to  which  he  repHes,  but  for  the  ex- 
ceedingly valuable  resume  he  supplies  of  the  whole  argument  as  respects  the  authenticity  of  the  New 
Testament  books.  It  is  a  great  service  to  the  cause  of  sacred  learning  which  the  accomplished 
Bishop  of  Durham  here  renders,  and  is  sure  to  be  appreciated  as  such  Jn  America  no  less  than  in  his 
own  country,  —  Chicago  Standard. 

It  may  confidently  be  affirmed  that  this  book  is  the  most  notable  contribution  to  the  evidences 
which  has  been  made  in  the  present  generation.  —  Standard  of  the  Cross. 

We  can  almost  thank  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion,  mischievous  as  that  book  is,  for 
provoking  this  most  valuable  contribution  to  the  support  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel.  ...  A 
volume  that  no  scholar  can  afford  to  do  without  in  his  library.  —  Living  Chttrch. 

Of  the  utmost  importance  to  those  interested  in  the  great  discussions  of  the  age.  —  Christian 
Advocate, 

A  permanent  contribution  to  the  most  erudite  and  exact  historical  criticism.  — Advance. 

Scholarly  and  unanswerable  criticisms  on  the  anonymous  work  called  Supernatural  Religion.  — 
Chicago   Tribune. 

LEADERS  IN  THE  NORTHERN  CHURCH.     i2mo.     (Just  ready.) 

ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS.  A  Revised  Text,  with  Introduc- 
tion, Notes,  and  Dissertations.     Tenth  edition,  revised.     8vo,  ^4.00. 

ST.  PAUL'S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  A  Revised  Text,  with  Introduc- 
tion, Notes,  and  Dissertations.     Ninth  edition,  revised.     8vo,  $4.00. 

ST.    PAUL'S    EPISTLE    TO    THE    COLOSSIANS  AND   TO   PHILEMON.     A 

Revised  Text,   with  Introductions,  Notes,  and  Dissertations.     Eighth  edition,  revised. 
Svo,  $4.00. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.  Part  II.  S.  Ignatius.  S.  Polycarp.  Revised 
Texts,  with  Introductions,  Notes,  and  Dissertations.  Second  edition.  Three  vols. 
Svo,  $16.50. 

Dr.  Salmon,  in  the  Academy,  of  the  previous  edition  said:  "  The  book  is  characterized  through- 
out by  the  admirable  thoroughness  with  which  Bishop  Liglitfoot  does  all  his  literary  work,  for  I  do 
not  know  any  writer  who  inspires  his  readers  with  more  just  confidence  that  no  work  has  been 
scamped,  that  on  every  question  all  the  available  evidence  has  been  laid  before  them,  and  the  argu- 
ments on  both  sides  fairly  presented." 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.  Abridged  edition.  With  short  Introductions.  Greek 
Text  and  English  Translations.     Svo.     (In  the  press.) 

ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME.  The  Two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  A  Revised 
Text,  with  Introduction  and  Notes.     Two  vols.     Svo.     (In  the  press.) 


Mac^nillan  4&;   Company'>s    NEW  C03IPTjETE  CATALOGUE  tvill  he  sent 
free  by  tnail  to  any  address  on  a-pitlication. 


MAOMILLAN  &  CO.,  112  Fourtli  Avenue,  NEW  YORK. 


THE 


Cbnrcb  Keview 


VOLUME    LVII.  *  APRIL,    1890 


Cijurcf)  31atunion. 

<&n  tl)e  25a^i^  f^ropo^cD  6p  tf\t  %axnbtti^  €onktmtt. 

Conference  of  Bishops  of  the  Ang/ica?t  Communion,  holden  at  Lajnbeth 
Palace  in  /ufyy  1888.  Encyclical  Letter  from  the  Bishops,  with 
Resolutions  attd  Reports.  London  :  Society  for  Promoting  Chris- 
tian Knowledge.     New  York :   E.  and  J.  B.  Young  and  Company. 

TT /"E  thought  it  would  be  not  only  a  courteous  act,  but  that  it 
VV  was  due  to  representative  men  of  the  chief  Protestant 
Communions  in  this  country,  to  offer  them  an  opportunity  to 
say  in  the  pages  of  the  Church  Review  how  far  they  are 
willing  to  accept  the  basis  for  Church  Reunion  proposed  by 
the  Lambeth  Conference.  Invitations  to  write  were  sent  out 
to  several  leading  clergymen  of  each  Communion  here  repre- 
sented, and  we  are  glad  to  state  that  they  were  accepted,  with 
but  three  or  four  exceptions. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  basis  proposed  for 
Church  Reunion,  we  give  so  much  of  the  Report  of  the  Lam- 
beth Conference  of  1888  as  relates  to  the  subject. 

Editor. 

ENCYCLICAL    LETTER. 

To  THE  Faithful  in  Christ  Jesus,  greeting  :  — 

We,  Archbishops,  Bishops  Metropolitan,  and  other  Bishops  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  in  full  communion  with  the  Church 
of  England,  one  hundred  and  forty-five  in  number,  all  having 
superintendence  over  Dioceses  or  lawfully  commissioned  to  ex- 
ercise Episcopal  functions  therein,  assembled  from  divers  parts 


12  The  Chtcrch  Review. 

of  the  earth,  at  Lambeth  Palace,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1888, 
under  the  presidency  of  the  Most  Reverend  Edward,  by  Divine 
Providence  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Primate  of  all  England 
and  Metropolitan,  after  receiving  in  the  chapel  of  the  said  palace 
the  Blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Body  and  Blood,  and 
uniting  in  prayer  for  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have 
taken  into  consideration  various  questions  which  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  us  affecting  the  welfare  of  God's  people  and  the  con- 
dition of  the  Church  in  divers  parts  of  the  world. 

We  have  made  these  matters  the  subject  of  careful  and  serious 
deliberation  during  the  month  past,  both  in  general  Conference 
and  in  Committees  specially  appointed  to  consider  the  several 
questions ;  and  we  now  commend  to  the  faithful  the  conclusions 
at  which  we  have  arrived. 

We  have  appended  to  this  letter  two  sets  of  documents,  the 
on-e  containing  the  formal  Resolutions  of  the  Conference,  and  the 
other  the  Reports  of  the  several  Committees.  We  desire  you  to 
bear  in  mind  that  the  Conference  is  responsible  for  the  first  alone. 
The  Reports  of  Committees  can  only  be  taken  to  represent  the 
mind  of  the  Conference  in  so  far  as  they  are  reaffirmed  or  di- 
rectly adopted  in  the  Resolutions;  but  we  have  thought  good  to 
print  these  Reports,  believing  that  they  will  offer  fruitful  matter 
for  consideration. 


Definite  Teaching  of  the  Faith, 

Recognizing  thus  the  primary  importance  of  maintaining  the 
moral  precepts  and  discipline  of  the  Gospel  in  all  the  relations 
of  life  and  society,  we  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  means, 
within  the  reach  and  contemplation  of  the  Churches,  for  incul- 
cating the  definite  truths  of  the  Faith,  which  are  the  basis  of 
such  moral  teaching. 

We  cannot  escape  the  conviction  that  this  department  of  work 
requires  great  attention  and  much  improvement.  The  religious 
teaching  of  the  young  is  sadly  deficient  in  depth  and  reality, 
especially  in  the  matter  of  doctrine.  This  deficiency  is  not  con- 
fined to  any  class  of  society,  and  the  task  of  remedying  the  de- 
fault is  one  which  the  laity  must  be  prepared  to  share  with  the 
clergy.  On  parents  it  lies  as  a  Divine  charge.  Godfathers  and 
godmothers  should  be  urged  to  fulfil  the  duty  which  they  have 


Ckrislian  Reunion. 


^3 


undertaken  for  the  children  whose  s[)onsors  they  have  been,  and  to 
see  that  they  are  not  left  uninstructed,  or  inadequately  prepared 
for  Confirmation.  The  use  of  public  catechising  and  rcgular 
preparation  of  candidates  for  Confirmation  is  capable  of  much 
development.  The  work  done  in  Sunday  Schools  requires,  as 
we  believe,  more  constant  supervision  and  more  sustained  in- 
terest than,  in  a  great  many  cases,  it  receives  from  the  clergy. 
The  instruction  of  Sunday  School  teachers,  and  of  the  pupil- 
teachers  in  Elementary  Schools,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  an 
indispensable  part  of  the  pastoral  work  of  a  parish  priest ;  and 
the  moral  and  practical  lessons  from  the  Bible  ought  to  be  en- 
forced by  constant  reference  to  the  sanctions,  and  to  the  illus- 
trations of  doctrine  and  discipline  belonging  to  them,  to  be  found 
in  the  same  Holy  Scripture.  It  would  be  possible,  to  a  greater 
extent  than  is  now  done,  to  make  sermons  in  Church  combine 
doctrinal  and  moral  efficiency  and,  by  illustrating  the  rationale 
of  Divine  service,  lead  on  the  congregations  to  the  perception 
of  the  definite  relations  between  worship,  faith,  and  work,  —  the 
lessons  of  the  Prayer-Book,  the  Catechism,  and  the  Creeds. 

It  is  not,  however,  with  reference  to  the  young  alone,  or  to 
the  recognized  members  of  their  own  flock,  that  the  clergy  have 
need  to  look  carefully  to  the  security  of  definiteness  in  teaching 
the  Faith. 

The  study  of  Holy  Scripture  is  a  great  part  of  the  mental 
discipline  of  the  Christian,  and  the  Bible  itself  is  the  main  in- 
strument in  all  teaching  of  religion.  Unhappily,  in  the  present 
day  there  is  a  wide-spread  system  of  propagandism  hostile  to 
the  reception  of  the  Bible  as  a  treasury  of  Divine  knowledge ; 
and  throughout  society  in  all  its  ranks,  misgivings,  doubts,  hos- 
tile criticisms,  and  sceptical  estimates  of  doctrinal  truths  as  based 
on  revelation,  are  very  common. 

The  doubts  which  arise  from  the  misapprehension  of  the  due 
relations  between  science  and  revelation  may  be,  and  ought  to 
be,  treated  with  respect  and  a  sympathetic  patience ;  and  where 
minds  have  been  disquieted  by  scientific  discovery  or  assertion, 
great  care  should  be  taken  not  to  extinguish  the  elements  of 
faith,  but  rather  to  direct  the  thinker  to  the  realization  of  the 
fact  that  such  discoveries  elucidate  the  action  of  laws  which, 
rightly  conceived,  tend  to  the  higher  appreciation  of  the  glorious 
work  of  the  CREATOR,  upheld  by  the  word  of  His  power. 

The  dangers  arising  from  the  hostile  or  sceptical  temper  and 


14  The  C/iu7rk  Review, 

attitude  are  increased  by  the  difficulty  of  determining  how  far 
our  teaching  and  the  popular  acceptance  of  it  can  be  harmonized 
with  a  due  consideration  for  the  views  on  inspiration,  and  espe- 
cially on  the  character  of  the  discipline  of  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  which,  although  they  have  never  received  definite 
sanction  in  the  Church,  have  been  long  and  widely  prevalent. 

We  must  recommend  to  the  clergy  cautious  and  industrious 
treatment  of  these  points  of  controversy,  and  most  earnestly 
press  upon  them  the  importance  of  .taking,  as  the  central  thought 
of  their  teaching,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  sacrifice  for 
our  sins,  as  the  healer  of  our  sinfulness,  the  source  of  all  our 
spiritual  life,  and  the  revelation  to  our  consciences  of  the  law 
and  motive  of  all  moral  virtue.  To  Him  and  to  His  work  all  the 
teachings  of  the  Old  Testament  converge  ;  and  from  Him  all  the 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament  flow,  in  spirit,  in  force,  and  in 
form.  The  work  of  the  Church  is  the  application  and  extension 
of  the  blessings  of  the  Incarnation,  and  her  teaching  the  develop- 
ment of  its  doctrinal  issues  as  contained  in  the  Creeds  of  the 
Church. 

Home  Reunion. 

After  anxious  discussion  we  have  resolved  to  content  our- 
selves with  laying  down  certain  articles  as  a  basis  on  which 
approach  may  be,  by  GOD's  blessing,  made  toward  Home 
Reunion.  These  articles,  four  in  number,  will  be  found  in  the 
appended  Resolutions. 

The  attitude  of  the  Anglican  Communion  toward  the  reli- 
gious bodies  now  separated  from  it  by  unhappy  divisions  would 
appear  to  be  this :  We  hold  ourselves  in  readiness  to  enter 
into  brotherly  conference  with  any  of  those  who  may  desire  in- 
tercommunion with  us  in  a  more  or  less  perfect  form.  W^e  lay 
down  conditions  on  which  such  intercommunion  is,  in  our  opin- 
ion, and  according  to  our  conviction,  possible.  For  however 
we  may  long  to  embrace  those  now  alienated  from  us,  so  that 
the  ideal  of  the  one  flock  under  the  one  Shepherd  may  be  real- 
ized, we  must  not  be  unfaithful  stewards  of  the  great  deposit 
intrusted  to  us.  We  cannot  desert  our  position  either  as  to  faith 
or  discipline.  That  concord  would,  in  our  judgment,  be  neither 
true  nor  desirable  which  should  be  produced  by  such  surrender. 

But  we  gladly  and  thankfully  recognize  the  real  religious 
work  which  is  carried  on  by  Christian  bodies  not  of  our  Com- 


Christian  Reunion.  15 

munion.  We  cannot  close  our  eyes  to  the  visible  blessing 
which  has  been  vouchsafed  to  their  labors  for  ClIRlST's  sake. 
Let  us  not  be  misunderstood  on  this  point.  We  are  not  insen- 
sible to  the  strouLj  ties,  the  rooted  convictions,  which  attach 
them  to  their  present  position.  These  we  respect,  as  we  wish 
that  on  our  side  our  own  principles  and  feelings  may  be  re- 
spected. Competent  observers,  indeed,  assert  that  not  in  I^ig- 
land  only,  but  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  there  is  a  real 
yearning  for  unity,  —  that  men's  hearts  are  moved  more  than 
heretofore  toward  Christian  fellowship.  The  Conference  has 
shown  in  its  discussions  as  well  as  its  resolutions  that  it  is  deeply 
penetrated  with  this  feeling.  May  the  Spirit  of  Love  move  on 
the  troubled  waters  of  religious  differences ! 

Relation  to  the  Scandinavian  CJmreh. 

Among  the  nations  with  whom  English-speaking  peoples  are 
brought  directly  in  contact  are  the  Scandinavian  races,  who 
form  an  important  element  of  the  population  in  many  of  our 
Dioceses.  The  attitude,  therefore,  which  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion should  take  toward  the  Scandinavian  Churches,  could 
not  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  this  Conference.  We  have 
recommended  that  fuller  knowledge  should  be  sought,  and 
friendly  intercourse  interchanged,  until  such  time  as  matters  may 
be  ripe  for  a  closer  alliance  without  any  sacrifice  of  principles 
which  we  hold  to  be  essential. 

To  Old  Catholics  and  OtJiers. 

Nor,  again,  is  it  possible  for  members  of  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion to  withhold  their  sympathies  from  those  Continental 
movements  toward  Reformation  which,  under  the  greatest  diffi- 
culties, have  proceeded  mainly  on  the  same  lines  as  our  own, 
retaining  Episcopacy  as  an  Apostolic  ordinance.  Though  we 
believe  that  the  time  has  not  come  for  any  direct  alliance  with 
any  of  these,  and  though  we  deprecate  any  precipitancy  of  ac- 
tion which  would  transgress  primitive  and  established  principles 
of  jurisdiction,  we  believe  that  advances  may  be  made  without 
sacrifice  of  these,  and  we  entertain  the  hope  that  the  time  may 
come  when  a  more  formal  alliance  with  some  at  least  of  these 
bodies  will  be  possible. 


1 6  The  Church  Review, 


To  the  Eastern  Chtcrches. 


The  Conference  has  expressed  its  earnest  desire  to  confirm 
and  to  improve  the  friendly  relations  which  now  exist  between 
the  Churches  of  the  East  and  the  Anglican  Communion.  These 
Churches  have  well  earned  the  sympathy  of  Christendom,  for 
through  long  ages  of  persecution  they  have  kept  alive  in  many 
a  dark  place  the  light  of  the  Gospel.  If  that  light  is  here  and 
there  feeble  or  dim,  there  is  all  the  more  reason  that  we,  as  we 
have  opportunity,  should  tend  and  cherish  it;  and  we  need  not 
fear  that  our  offices  of  brotherly  charity,  if  offered  in  a  right 
spirit,  will  not  be  accepted.  We  reflect  with  thankfulness  that 
there  exist  no  bars,  such  as  are  presented  to  communion  with 
the  Latins  by  the  formulated  sanction  of  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Church  residing  in  the  person  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception,  and  other  dogmas  im- 
posed by  the  decrees  of  Papal  councils.  The  Church  of  Rome 
has  always  treated  her  Eastern  sister  wrongfully.  She  intrudes 
her  bishops  into  the  ancient  Dioceses,  and  keeps  up  a  system 
of  active  proselytism.  The  Eastern  Church  is  reasonably  out- 
raged by  these  proceedings,  wholly  contrary  as  they  are  to 
Catholic  principles ;  and  it  behooves  us  of  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion to  take  care  that  we  do  not  offend  in  like  manner. 

Individuals  craving  fuller  light  and  stronger  spiritual  life  may, 
by  remaining  in  the  Church  of  their  baptism,  become  centres 
of  enlightenment  to  their  own  people. 

But  though  all  schemes  of  proselytizing  are  to  be  avoided,  it  is 
only  right  that  our  real  claims  and  position  as  a  historical  Church 
should  be  set  before  a  people  who  are  very  distrustful  of  nov- 
elty, especially  in  religion,  and  who  appreciate  the  history  of 
Catholic  antiquity.  Help  should  be  given  toward  the  educa- 
tion of  the  clergy,  and  in  more  destitute  communities  extended 
to  schools  for  general  instruction. 

Authoritative  Standards. 

The  authoritative  standards  of  doctrine  and  worship  claim 
your  careful  attention  in  connection  with  these  subjects.  It  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  that  our  faith  and  practice  should 
be  represented,  both  to  the  ancient  Churches  and  to  the  native 
and  growing  Churches  in  the  mission-field,  in  a  manner  which 


Christian  Re  ten  ion.  17 

shall  neither  give  cause  for  offence,  nor  restrict  due  liberty, 
nor  present  any  stumbling-blocks  in  the  way  of  complete 
communion. 

In  conformity  with  the  practice  of  the  former  Conferences,  wc 
declare  that  we  are  united  under  our  Divine  Head  in  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  holding  the  one 
Faith  revealed  in  Holy  Writ,  defined  in  the  Creeds,  maintained 
by  the  primitive  Church,  and  affirmed  by  the  undisputed  Ecu- 
menical Councils;  as  standards  of  doctrine  and  worship  alike, 
we  recognize  the  Prayer-Book  with  its  Catechism,  the  Ordinal, 
and  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  —  the  special  heritage  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  received  by 
all  the  Churches'  of  our  Communion. 

We  desire  that  these  standards  should  be  set  before  the 
foreign  Churches  in  their  purity  and  simplicity.  A  certain 
liberty  of  treatment  must  be  extended  to  the  cases  of  native 
and  growing  Churches,  on  which  it  would  be  unreasonable  to 
impose,  as  conditions  of  communion,  the  whole  of  the  Thirty- 
Nine  Articles,  colored  as  they  are  in  language  and  form  by  the 
peculiar  circumstances  under  which  they  were  originally  drav/n 
up.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  impossible  for  us  to  share 
with  them  in  the  matter  of  Holy  Orders,  as  in  complete  inter- 
communion, without  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  hold  sub- 
stantially the  same  form  of  doctrine  as  ourselves.  It  ought  not 
to  be  difficult,  much  less  impossible,  to  formulate  articles  in 
accordance  with  our  own  standards  of  doctrine  and  worship, 
the  acceptance  of  which  should  be  required  of  all  ordained  in 
such  Churches. 

We  close  this  letter  rendering  our  humble  and  hearty  thanks 
to  Almighty  GOD  for  His  great  goodness  toward  us.  We  have 
been  permitted  to  meet  together  in  larger  numbers  than  hereto- 
fore. Contributions  of  knowledge  and  experience  have  been 
poured  into  the  common  stock  from  all  parts  of  the  earth.  We 
have  realized,  more  fully  than  it  was  possible  to  realize  before, 
the  extent,  the  power,  and  the  influence  of  the  great  Anglican 
Communion.  We  have  felt  its  capacities,  its  opportunities,  its 
privileges.  In  our  common  deliberations  we  have  tested  its 
essential  oneness  amid  all  varieties  of  condition  and  develop- 
ment. Wherever  there  was  diversity  of  opinion  among  us 
there  was  also  harmony  of  spirit  and  unity  of  aim ;   and  we  shall 


1 8  The  Church  Review. 

return  to  our  several  Dioceses  refreshed,  strengthened,  and 
inspired  by  the  memories   which  we   shall  carry  away. 

But  the  sense  of  thanksgiving  is  closely  linked  with  the  ob- 
ligation of  duty.  This  fuller  realization  of  our  privileges  as 
members  of  the  Anglican  Communion  carries  with  it  a  height- 
ened sense  of  our  responsibilities,  which  do  not  end  with  our 
own  people  or  with  the  mission-field  alone,  but  extend  to  all 
the  Churches  of  GOD.  The  opportunities  of  an  exceptional 
position  call  us  to  an  exceptional  work.  It  is  our  earnest 
prayer  that  all  —  clergy  and  laity  alike  —  may  take  God'S 
manifest  purpose  to  heart,  and  strive  in  their  several  stations 
to  work  it  out  in  all   its   fulness. 

With  these  parting  words  we  commend  the  results  at  which 
we  have  arrived  in  this  Conference  to  your  careful  considera- 
tion, praying  that  the  HOLY  SPIRIT  may  direct  your  thoughts 
and  lead  you  to  all  truth,  and  that  our  counsels  may  redound 
through  your  action  to  the  glory  of  GOD  and  the  increase  of 
Christ's  kingdom.     Signed,  on  behalf  of  the  Conference, 

Edw:  Cantuar. 

C.  J.  Gloucester  &  Bristol,  Episcopal  Secretary. 
Randall  T.  Davidson,  Dean  of  Windsor,  General  Secretary. 
B.  F.  Smith,  Archdeacon  of  Maidstone,  Assistant  Secretary. 


The  following  Resolutions  were  formally  adopted  by  the 
Conference. 

II.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Conference,  the  following  Articles 
supply  a  basis  on  which  approach  may  be  by  God's  blessing  made 
toward  Home  Reunion  :  — 

{a)  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  'con- 
taining all  things  necessary  to  salvation,'  and  as  being  the  rule  and 
ultimate  standard  of  Faith. 

{b)  The  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol ;  and  the  Nicene 
Creed,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith. 

(^)  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Himself,  —  Baptism 
and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  —  ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's 
words  of  institution,  and  of  the  elements  ordained  by  Him. 

{(i)  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its 
administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called 
of  GoD  into  the  unity  of  His  Church. 


Christian  Retmion.  19 

12.  That  this  Conference  earnestly  recjuests  the  constituted  author- 
ities of  the  various  branches  of  our  Communion,  acting,  so  far  as  may 
be,  in  concert  with  one  another,  to  make  it  known  that  they  hold  them- 
selves in  readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly  conference  (such  as  that 
which  has  already  been  proposed  by  the  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America)  with  the  representatives  of  other  Christian  Communions 
in  the  Knglish-speaking  races,  in  order  to  consider  what  steps  can  be 
taken,  either  toward  corporate  Reunion,  or  toward  such  relations  as 
may  prepare  the  way  for  fuller  organic  unity  hereafter. 

13.  That  this  Conference  recommends  as  of  great  importance,  in 
tending  to  bring  about  reunion,  the  dissemination  of  information  re- 
specting the  standards  of  doctrine  and  the  formularies  in  use  in  the 
Anglican  Church,  and  recommends  that  information  be  disseminated, 
on  the  other  hand,  respecting  the  authoritative  standards  of  doctrine, 
worship,  and  government  adopted  by  the  other  bodies  of  Christians 
into  which   the   English-speaking  races  are  divided. 

14.  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Conference,  earnest  efforts  should 
be  made  to  establish  more  friendly  relations  betw^een  the  Scandinavian 
and  Anglican  Churches ;  and  that  approaches  on  the  part  of  the 
Swedish  Church,  with  a  view  to  the  mutual  explanation  of  differ- 
ences, be  most  gladly  welcomed,  in  order  to  the  ultimate  establishment, 
if  possible,  of  intercommunion  on  sound  principles  of  ecclesiastical 
polity. 

15.  {a)  That  this  Conference  recognizes  with  thankfulness  the 
dignified  and  independent  position  of  the  Old  Catholic  Church  of 
Holland,  and  looks  to  more  frequent  brotherly  intercourse  to  remove 
many  of  the  barriers  which  at  present  separate  us. 

{b)  That  we  regard  it  as  a  duty  to  promote  friendly  relations  with 
the  Old  Catholic  Community  in  Germany,  and  with  the  '  Christian 
Catholic  Church '  in  Switzerland,  not  only  out  of  sympathy  with  them, 
but  also  in  thankfulness  to  God  who  has  strengthened  them  to  suffer 
for  the  truth  under  great  discouragements,  difficulties,  and  temptations ; 
and  that  we  offer  them  the  privileges  recommended  by  the  Committee 
under  the  conditions  specified  in  its  Report. 

{c)  That  the  sacrifices  made  by  the  Old  Catholics  in  Austria  deser\'e 
our  sympathy,  and  that  we  hope,  when  their  organization  is  sufficiently 
tried  and  complete,  a  more  formal  relation  may  be  found  possible. 

{d)  That,  with  regard  to  the  reformers  in  Italy,  France,  Spain,  and 
Portugal,  struggling  to  free  themselves  from  the  burden  of  unlawful 
terms  of  communion,  we  trust  that  they  may  be  enabled  to  adopt  such 
sound  forms  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  to  secure  such  Catholic 
organization,  as  will  permit  us  to  give  them  a  fuller  recognition. 


20  The  Church  Review. 

{e)  That,  without  desiring  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  bishops 
of  the  CathoHc  Church  to  interpose  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity,  we 
deprecate  any  action  that  does  not  regard  primitive  and  estabhshed 
principles  of  jurisdiction,  and  the  interests  of  the  whole  Anglican 
Communion.^ 

1 6.  That,  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  the  Anglican  Church  to  the  Unitas  Fratrum,  or  Moravians,  was  re- 
mitted by  the  last  Lambeth  Conference  to  a  Committee,  which  has 
hitherto  presented  no  Report  on  the  subject,  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury be  requested  to  appoint  a  Committee  of  Bishops  who  shall  be 
empowered  to  confer  with  learned  theologians,  and  with  the  heads  of 
the  Unitas  Fratrum,  and  shall  report  to  His  Grace  before  the  end  of 
the  current  year,  and  that  His  Grace  be  requested  to  take  such  action 
on  their  Report  as  he  shall  deem  right. 

17.  That  this  Conference,  rejoicing  in  the  friendly  communications 
which  have  passed  between  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  other 
Anglican  bishops,  and  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  and  other  East- 
em  patriarchs  and  bishops,  desires  to  express  its  hope  that  the  barriers 
to  fuller  communion  may  be,  in  course  of  time,  removed  by  further  in- 
tercourse and  extended  enlightenment.  The  Conference  commends  this 
subject  to  the  devout  prayers  of  the  faithful,  and  recommends  that  the 
counsels  and  efforts  of  our  fellow-Christians  should  be  directed  to  the 
encouragement  of  internal  reformation  in  the  Eastern  Churches,  rather 
than  to  the  drawing  away  from  them  of  individual  members  of  their 
Communion. 

18.  That  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  be  requested  to  take  counsel 
with  such  persons  as  he  may  see  fit  to  consult,  with  a  view  to  ascertain- 
ing whether  it  is  desirable  to  revise  the  English  version  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  or  of  the  Qidainque  Vult} 

19.  That,  as  regards  newly  constituted  Churches,  especially  in  non- 
Christian  lands,  it  should  be  a  condition  of  the  recognition  of  them  as 
in  complete  intercommunion  with  us,  and  especially  of  their  receiving 
from  us  Episcopal  succession,  that  we  should  first  receive  from  them 
satisfactory  evidence  that  they  hold  substantially  the  same  doctrine  as 
our  own,  and  that  their  clergy  subscribe  Articles  in  accordance  with  the 
express  statements  of  our  own  standards  of  doctrine  and  worship ;  but 
that  they  should  not  necessarily  be  bound  to  accept  in  their  entirety  the 
Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  Religion. 

1  Resolutions  {a),  (i),  {c),  (d),  {e),  were  czxritdi  nemine  contradicente. 

2  Carried  by  57  votes  to  20. 


Christian  Reuiiion.  21 

REPORTS   OF   COMMITTEES. 

No.  9.  — HOME  RKUNION. 

Report  of  the  Committee'^  appointed  to  consider  what  steps  (^if  any)  can 
be  rigJitly  taken  on  behalf  of  the  Anglican  Comniiniion  toward  the 
reunion  of  the  various  bodies  into  which  the  Christianity  of  the 
English-speaking  races  is  divided. 

The  Committee  was  appointed  to  consider  '  what  steps  (if  any)  can 
be  rightly  taken,  on  behalf  of  the  Anglican  Communion,  toward  the  re- 
union of  the  various  bodies  into  which  the  Christianity  of  the  English- 
speaking  races  is  divided.' 

L  On  entering  upon  their  duty,  they  had  at  once  brought  to  their 
notice  evidence  of  a  strong  consensus  of  authoritative  opinion,  from 
various  branches  of  the  Anglican  Communion,  that  the  time  for  some 
action  in  this  matter,  under  prayer  for  God's  guidance  through  many 
acknowledged  difficulties  and  dangers,  has  already  come ;  and  that  the 
Conference  —  speaking,  as  it  must  speak,  with  the  greatest  weight  of 
moral  authority  —  should  not  separate  without  some  such  utterance  as 
may  further  and  direct  such  action. 

In  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  the  subject  has  been  under  discus- 
sion, at  intervals,  for  nearly  thirty  years.  In  the  year  1861  a  resolution, 
on  the  motion  of  the  Rev.  Chancellor  Massingberd,  was  carried  nem, 
con.  in  the  Lower  House,  praying  the  bishops  to  commend  the  subject 
of  'the  Reunion  of  the  divided  members  of  Christ's  Body '  to  the  prayers 
of  the  faithful. 

In  1870,  at  the  instance  of  the  Lower  House,  a  Committee  was  ap- 
pointed on  Reunion,  with  power  to  confer  with  any  similar  Committee 
which  might  be  appointed  in  the  Northern  Province.  The  Committee, 
in  its  Report,  recommended  the  use  of  the  special  Prayer  for  Unity,  ap- 
pointed for  the  day  of  the  Queen's  Accession,  and  the  consideration  of 
the  propriety  of  communication  on  the  subject  with  the  chief  Non-Con- 

1  Names  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  :  — 

Bishop  of  Sydney  {Chairman).  Bishop  of  Minnesota. 

"       Adelaide.  "  Nelson. 

"       Antigua  (Coadjutor).  "  New  York. 

"       Brechin.  "  Ripon. 

"       Edinburgh.  "  Rochester. 

*'       Hereford.  "  Rupertsland. 

*'       Jamaica.  "  S.  Andrew's. 

"       Lichfield.  "  Wakefield. 
*•       Manchester. 


2  2  The  Church  Review. 

formist  bodies ;  and  these  recommendations,  after  a  singularly  interesting 
debate,  were  adopted  by  the  house. 

The  Report  contained  the  following  passage  :  '  The  Committee  do 
not  recommend  that  we  should  set  out  with  proposing  alterations  of 
our  existing  formularies  of  faith  and  worship,  while  they  by  no  means 
deny  that  concessions  might  be  admitted  hereafter,  as  the  consequence 
of  negotiations  carried  on  in  a  spirit  of  love  and  unity.'  It  also  sug- 
gested that  on  the  day  of  the  Queen's  Accession  '  all  classes  of  Non- 
Conformists  should  be  invited  to  institute  similar  prayers '  for  unity,  and 
that  the  subject  might  be  brought  by  sermons  before  our  own  people. 

In  1887  the  subject  was  again  taken  up,  and  a  Resolution  carried,  on 
the  motion  of  Canon  Medd,  that  '  His  Grace  the  President  be  requested 
to  direct  the  appointment  of  a  Joint  Committee  to  consider,  and  from 
time  to  time  to  report  upon,  the  relations  between  the  Church  and  those 
who  in  this  country  are  alienated  from  her  Communion ;  and  generally 
to  make  suggestions  as  to  means  which  might  tend,  by  God's  blessing, 
to  the  furtherance  of  union  of  all  among  our  countrymen  who  hold  the 
essentials  of  the  Christian  Faith.'  In  the  speech  of  the  mover  of  the 
Resolution  special  reference  was  made  to  the  probability  of  the  discussion 
of  the  subject  at  the  Lambeth  Conference. 

In  the  Convocation  of  York,  the  Committee  have  reason  to  know  that 
similar  action  has  been  taken ;  but  under  pressure  of  time  they  have 
been  unable  to  obtain  detailed  information  of  the  actual  proceedings. 

From  various  Synods  of  the  Colonial  Church,  similar,  and  even 
stronger,  expressions  of  a  desire  to  make  some  movement  on  the  part 
of  the  Anglican  Communion  in  this  direction  have  been  brought  before 
the  Committee.  The  General  Synod  of  the  Church  in  Australia  and 
Tasmania,  in  1886,  'desired  to  place  on  record  its  solemn  sense  of  the 
evils  of  the  unhappy  divisions  among  professing  Christians,  and,  through 
His  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  respectfully  prayed  the  Con- 
ference of  bishops  to  be  assembled  at  Lambeth  in  1888  to  consider  in 
what  manner  steps  should  be  taken  to  promote  greater  visible  unity 
among  those  who  hold  the  same  Creed.'  A  Resolution  was  passed  in 
almost  the  same  words  by  the  Diocesan  Synod  of  Montreal ;  and  similar 
Resolutions  by  the  Provincial  Synod  of  Rupertsland,  and  the  General 
Synod  of  New  Zealand.  At  the  Session  of  the  Provincial  Synod  of 
Canada  in  1886,  a  Joint  Committee  was  appointed,  to  confer  with  any 
similar  Committees,  which  might  be  appointed  by  other  religious 
bodies,  on  the  terms  upon  which  some  honorable  union  might  be 
arrived  at. 

But  the  most  important  and  practical  step  has  been  taken  by  our 
brethren  of  the  American  Church  in  the  General  Convention  of  1886, 
in  accordance  with  the  prayer  of  a  petition  signed  by  more  than  a 


Christian  Reunion.  23 

thousand  clergy,  including  thirty-two  bishops.  At  that  Convention  a 
Committee  of  the  House  of  l>ishops  presented  a  remarkable  Report, 
which,  after  stating  emphatically  that  the  Church  did  '  not  seek  to  ab- 
sorb other  Communions,  but  to  co-operate  with  them  on  the  basis  of  a 
common  Faith  and  Order,  to  discountenance  schism,  and  to  heal  the 
wounds  of  the  Body  of  C:HRis'r ; '  and  that  she  was  prei)ared  to  make 
all  reasonable  concessions  on  'all  things  of  human  ordering  and  of 
human  choice,'  dwelt  upon  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  preserve,  '  as  in- 
herent parts  of  the  sacred  deposit  of  Christian  Faith  and  Order  com- 
mitted by  Chrisf  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Church,  and  as  therefore 
essential  to  the  restoration  of  unity,'  the  following  :  — 

*i.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  the 
Revealed  Word  of  God. 

*2.  The  Nicene  Creed,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian 
Faith. 

'  3.  The  two  Sacraments,  —  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord, — 
ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words  of  institution,  and  the 
elements  ordained  by  Him. 

*  4.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its 
administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called 
of  God  into  the  unity  of  His  Church.' 

The  Report  concluded  with  the  following  words  :  — 
'  Furthermore,  deeply  grieved  by  the  sad  divisions  which  afflict  the 
Christian  Church  in  our  owai  land,  we  hereby  declare  our  desire  and 
readiness,  so  soon  as  there  shall  be  any  authorized  response  to  this 
Declaration,  to  enter  into  brotherly  conference  with  all  or  any  Christian 
bodies  seeking  the  restoration  of  organic  Unity  of  the  Church,  with  a 
view  to  the  earnest  study  of  the  conditions  under  which  so  priceless  a 
blessing  might  happily  be  brought  to  pass.' 

This  Report  was  adopted  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  communi- 
cated to  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies ;  and  at  the  instance 
of  the  latter  House  it  was  resolved  — 

'  That  a  Commission  consisting  of  five  bishops,  five  clerical  and  five 
lay  deputies,  be  appointed,  who  shall  at  their  discretion  communicate, 
to  the  organized  Christian  bodies  of  our  country,  the  Declaration  set 
forth  by  the  bishops  on  the  twentieth  day  of  October ;  and  shall  hold 
themselves  ready  to  enter  into  brotherly  conference  with  all  or  any 
Christian  bodies  seeking  the  restoration  of  the  organic  unity  of  the 
Church.' 

After  consideration  of  these  significant  documents,  and  of  memorials 
from  certain  Associations  which  have  already  done  good  service  in  this 
cause,  it  was  decided  by  the  Committee  that  they  were  more  than  justi- 
fied in  recommending  to    the  Conference  that  some  steps  should  be 


24  The  Church  Review, 

taken  by  it  in  the  direction  specified  in  the  Resolution  constituting  the 
Committee. 

II.  In  considering  how  this  could  best  be  done,  it  appeared  to  the 
Committee  that  the  subject  divided  itself  naturally  into  two  parts  :  first, 
the  basis  on  which  the  united  Church  might,  in  the  future,  safely  rest ; 
secondly,  the  conditions  under  which  present  negotiations  for  reunion, 
in  view  of  existing  circumstances,  could  be  carried  on. 

The  Committee  with  deep  regret  felt  that  under  present  conditions 
it  was  useless  to  consider  the  question  of  Reunion  with  our  brethren  of 
the  Roman  Church,  being  painfully  aware  that  any  proposal  for  reunion 
would  be  entertained  by  the  authorities  of  that  Church  only  on  con- 
dition of  a  complete  submission  on  our  part  to  those  claims  of  absolute 
authority,  and  the  acceptance  of  those  other  errors,  both  in  doctrine 
and  in  discipline,  against  which,  in  faithfulness  to  God's  Holy  Word, 
and  to  the  true  principles  of  His  Church,  we  have  been  for  three  cen- 
turies bound  to  protest. 

But  in  regard  to  the  first  portion  of  the  subject,  the  Committee  were 
of  opinion  that  with  the  chief  of  the  Non-conforming  Communions  there 
would  not  only  be  less  difficulty  than  is  commonly  supposed  as  to  the 
basis  of  a  common  faith  in  the  essentials  of  Christian  doctrine,  but  that 
even  in  respect  of  Church  Government,  many  of  the  causes  which  had 
originally  led  to  secession  had  been  removed,  and  that  both  from  deeper 
study  and  from  larger  historical  experience  there  was  in  the  present 
day  a  greater  disposition  to  value  and  to  accept  the  ancient  Church 
Order.  It  did  not,  indeed,  appear  to  them  that  the  question  before 
them,  which  was  of  the  duty,  if  any,  of  the  Anglican  Communion  in 
this  matter,  was  to  be  absolutely  determined  by  these  considerations ; 
but  they  seemed,  nevertheless,  to  give  important  encouragement  to 
the  Church  in  the  endeavor  to  do  what  might  appear  to  be  her  duty  in 
furthering  this  all-important  matter. 

Accordingly,  after  careful  consideration,  they  determined  to  take  as 
the  basis  of  their  deliberations  on  this  part  of  the  subject  the  chief  arti- 
cles embodied  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Bishops 
in  the  American  Church ;  and  after  discussion  of  each,  they  submit 
them  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Conference,  with  some  modifications,  as 
supplying  the  basis  on  which  approach  might  be,  under  God's  blessing, 
made  toward  Reunion  :  — 

1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  ^con- 
taining all  things  necessary  to  salvation,'  and  as  being  the  rule  and 
ultimate  standard  of  Faith. 

2.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol;  and  the  Nicene 
Creed,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith. 

3.  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Himself,  —  Baptism  and 


ChristuDi  Reunion.  2^ 

the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  —  ministered  with   unfailing'  use  (jf  Christ's 
words  of  institution,  and  of  the  eieiuenls  (jnhiincd  hy  Ilim. 

4.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its 
administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called 
of  God  into  the  unity  of  His  Church. 

The  Committee  believe  that  ujjon  some  such  basis  as  this,  with  large 
freedom  of  variation  on  secondary  pcjints  of  doctrine,  worship,  and 
discipline,  and  without  interference  with  existing  conditions  of  prop- 
erty and  endowment,  it  might  be  possible,  under  God's  gracious  provi- 
dence, for  a  reunited  Church,  including  at  least  the  chief  of  the  Christian 
Communions  of  our  people,  to  rest. 

HI.  But  they  are  aware  that  the  main  difficulty  of  the  subject  lies 
in  the  consideration  of  what  practical  steps  can  be  taken  toward  such 
reunion  under  the  actual  religious  conditions  of  the  community  at  home 
and  abroad,  complicated,  moreover,  in  England  and  Scotland  by 
legal  difficulties.  It  appears  to  them,  moreover,  clear  that  on  this  sub- 
ject the  Conference  can  only  express  an  opinion  on  general  principles, 
and  that  definite  action  must  be  left  to  the  constituted  authorities  in 
each  branch  of  our  Communion,  acting,  as  far  as  possible,  in  concert. 

They  therefore  respectfully  submit  to  the  Conference  the  following 
Resolution  :  — 

<  That  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  various  branches  of  our  Com- 
munion, acting,  so  far  as  may  be,  in  concert  with  one  another,  be 
earnestly  requested  to  make  it  known  that  they  hold  themselves  in 
readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly  conference  (such  as  that  which  has 
already  been  proposed  by  the  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America) 
with  the  representatives  of  other  chief  Christian  Communions  in  the 
English-speaking  races,  in  order  to  consider  what  steps  can  be  taken, 
either  toward  corporate  reunion,  or  toward  such  relations  as  may  pre- 
pare the  way  for  fuller  organic  unity  hereafter.' 

IV.  They  cannot  conclude  their  Report  without  laying  before  the 
Conference  the  following  suggestion,  unanimously  adopted  by  the 
Committee :  — 

'■  That  the  Conference  recommend  as  of  great  importance,  in  tending 
to  bring  about  Reunion,  the  dissemination  of  information  respecting  the 
standards  of  doctrine  and  the  formularies  in  use  in  the  Anglican  Church  ; 
and  that  information  be  disseminated,  on  the  other  hand,  respecting  the 
authoritative  standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  government  adopted 
by  the  other  bodies  of  Christians  into  which  the  English-speaking  races 
are  divided.' 

They  also  desire  —  following  in  this  respect  the  example  of  the  Con- 
vocation of  Canterbury — to  pray  the  Conference  to  commend  this 
matter  of  Reunion  to  the  special  prayers  of  all  Christian  people,  both 


26  The  Church  Review. 

within  and  (so  far  as  it  may  rightly  do  so)  without  our  Communion,  in 
preparation  for  the  Conferences  which  have  been  suggested,  and  while 
such  Conferences  are  going  on ;  and  they  trust  that  the  present  Lam- 
beth Conference  may  also  see  fit  to  issue,  or  to  pray  His  Grace  the 
President  to  issue,  some  pastoral  letter  to  all  Christian  people,  upon  this 
all-important  subject.  For  never  certainly  did  the  Church  of  Christ 
need  more  urgently  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  of  love,  which  He  alone 
can  bestow,  who  is  '  the  Author  and  Giver  of  all  good  things.' 
Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

Alfred  Sydney,  Chairman. 


No.   lo.  — SCANDINAVIANS.  — OLD    CATHOLICS. 

Report  of  the  Committee  ^  appointed  to  consider  the  reIatio7i  of  the 
Anglican  Cornmunion  (A)  to  the  Scandinavian  and  other  Reformed 
ChuixheSy  (fB)  to  the  Old  Catholics  and  other  Reforming  Bodies. 


Your  Committee  consider  that,  in  view  of  the  increasing  number  of 
Swedes  and  other  Scandinavians  now  living  in  America  and  in  the 
English  Colonies,  as  well  as  for  the  furtherance  of  Christian  unity, 
earnest  efforts  should  be  made  to  establish  more  friendly  relations 
between  the   Scandinavian  and  Anglican  Churches. 

In  regard  to  the  Swedish  Church  your  Committee  are  of  opinion 
that,  as  its  standards  of  doctrine  are  to  a  great  extent  in  accord  with 
our  own  and  its  continuity  as  a  National  Church  has  never  been  broken, 
any  approaches  on  its  part  should  be  most  gladly  welcomed  with  a  view 
to  mutual  explanation  of  differences,  and  the  ultimate  establishment,  if 
possible,  of  permanent  intercommunion  on  sound  principles  of  eccle- 
siastical polity. 

Greater  difficulties  are  presented  as  regards  communion  with  the 
Norwegian  and  Danish  Churches  by  the  constitution  of  their  ministry ; 
but  there  are  grounds  of  hope,  in  the  growing  appreciation  of  Church 

1  Names  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  :  — 

Bishop  of  Winchester  {Chainnan).      Bishop  of  Dunedin. 

"  Gibraltar. 

Archbishop  of  Dublin.  "  Iowa. 

Bishop  of  Albany.  "  Lichfield. 

"      Cashel  "  Lincoln. 

"      Central  Africa.  "  North  Carolina. 

*'      Cork.  "  Salisbury. 

"      Derry.  "  Western  New  York. 


Christian  Reunio7i.  27 

order,  that  in  the  course  of  tune  these  difficulties  may  be  surmounted. 
It  is  much  to  be  desired  that  a  basis  of  union  should  be  formed  with 
a  people  who  are  distinguished  by  great  devotional  earnestness  and 
uprightness  of  character. 

B. 

By  the  name  Old  Catholics  we  understand,  in  general  terms,  those 
members  of  foreign  Churches  who  have  been  excommunicated  on  ac- 
count of  their  refusal,  for  conscience'  sake,  to  accept  the  novel  doc- 
trines promulgated  by  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  who 
yet  desire  to  maintain  in  its  integrity  the  Catholic  Faith,  and  to  remain 
in  full  communion  with  the  Catholic  Church.  As  in  the  previous  Con- 
ference, held  in  1878,^  we  declare  that  'all  sympathy  is  due  from  the 
Anglican  Church  to  the  Churches  and  individuals  protesting  against 
these  errors ;  '  and  '  to  those  who  are  drawn  to  us  in  the  endeavor  to 
free  themselves  from  the  yoke  of  error  and  superstition  we  are  ready 
to  offer  all  help  and  such  privileges  as  may  be  acceptable  to  them  and 
are  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  our  own  principles,  as  enun- 
ciated in  our  formularies.' 

Ten  years  have  passed  since  this  declaration  was  issued^  and  we  are 
now  called  to  consider  more  in  detail  our  relations  to  the  different 
groups  comprehended   under  this  general  title. 


First  of  all,  it  is  due  to  the  ancient  Church  of  Holland,  which  in  prac- 
tice accepts  the  title  of  Old  Catholic,  to  recognize  the  fact  that  it  has 
uttered  energetic  protests  against  the  novel  dogmas  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  the  universal  bishopric 
and  infallibility  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  It  is  to  this  Church  that  the 
community  usually  termed  Old  Catholic,  in  the  German  Empire,  owes 
in  the  providence  of  God  the  Episcopal  succession.  We  recognize 
with  thankfulness  the  dignified  and  independent  position  which  the 
Church  of  Holland  maintained  for  many  years  in  almost  absolute 
isolation.  It  has  now  broken  through  this  isolation,  as  regards  its 
neighbors  on  the  Continent.  As  regards  ourselves,  the  Church  of  Hol- 
land is  found  on  inquiry  to  be  in  agreement  with  our  Church  in  many 
points,  and  we  believe  that  with  more  frequent  brotherly  intercourse 
many  of  the  barriers  which  at  present  separate  us  might  be  removed. 

1  Official  Letter  of  1878  in  Origirj  and  History  of  the  Lavibeth  Confeyences,  pp.  135 
and  136.     S.  P..C.  K.     18S8. 


28  The  Church  Review, 


II. 

The  Old  Catholic  community  in  Germany  differs  from  the  Church 
of  Holland,  in  this  respect,  among  others,  that  it  does  not  retain  pos- 
session of  the  ancient  Sees.  The  bishop  of  that  community  has  wisely 
refrained  from  assuming  a  territorial  title ;  we  are  not,  however,  without 
hope  that  the  Old  Catholic  body  may  be,  with  the  Divine  guidance  and 
in  God's  good  time,  instrumental  in  restoring  to  that  country  the  bless- 
ing of  a  united  national  Church.  It  may  be  noted  that  Bishop  Rein- 
kens,  shortly  after  his  consecration,  was  recognized  as  a  Catholic  bishop 
by  the  civil  power  in  Prussia,  Baden,  and  Hesse. ^  He  and  the  paro- 
chial clergy  under  him  have  the  right  and  duty,  recognized  by  the 
State,  of  teaching  the  children  of  their  own  confession  in  the  public 
schools.  They  are  also  in  undisturbed  possession  of  a  number  of  an- 
cient churches  and  benefices,  and  receive  for  the  present  a  subsidy 
granted  by  Parliament. 

As  regards  the  form  of  doctrine  actually  professed  by  this  body,  we 
believe  that  its  return  to  the  standards  of  the  undivided  Church  is  a 
distinct  advance  toward  the  reunion  of  Christendom.  We  learn  that 
it  formulates  the  fuller  expression  of  its  belief  in  catechisms  and  manuals 
of  instruction,  rather  than  in  articles  or  confessions,  because  it  desires 
to  avoid  any  methods  which  might  create  or  perpetuate  divisions. 

We  cannot  consider  that  it  is  in  schism  as  regards  the  Roman 
Church,  because  to  do  so  would  be  to  concede  the  lawfulness  of  the 
imposition  of  new  terms  of  communion,  and  of  the  extravagant  asser- 
tions by  the  Papacy  of  ordinary  and  immediate  jurisdiction  in  every 
Diocese,  For  ourselves  we  regard  it  as  a  duty  to  promote  friendly  rela- 
tions with  the  Old  Catholics  of  Germany,  not  only  out  of  sympathy 
with  them,  but  also  in  thankfulness  to  God,  who  has  strengthened  them 
to  suffer  for  the  truth  under  great  discouragements,  difficulties,  and 
temptations.  We  owe  them  our  intercessions,  our  support,  and  our 
brotherly  counsel ;  and  we  have  reason  to  beheve  that  aid  from  indi- 
vidual members  of  our  Church  may  be  most  beneficially  given  toward 
the  training  of  their  future  clergy. 

We  see  no  reason  why  we  should  not  admit  their  clergy  and  faithful 
laity  to  Holy  Communion  on  the  same  conditions  as  our  own  commu- 
nicants, and  we  also  acknowledge  the  readiness  which  they  have  shown 
to  offer  spiritual  privileges  to  members  of  our  own  Church. 

1  The  documents  in  question  are  printed  at  length  in  Der  Altkatholikismus,  pub- 
lished in  1887  by  J.  F.  von  Schulte,  pp.  405,  415,  416.  The  Prussian  Old  Catho- 
lic law  is  to  be  found  on  pp.  44-46.  Cp.  pp.  549  foil.  (Staatszuschuss  fiir  die 
Altkatholiken). 


Christian  Rc2inion.  29 

We  regret  that  dilTcrenccs  in  our  marriage  laws,  which  we  believe  to 
be  of  great  importance,  compel  us  to  state  that  we  are  obliged  to  debar 
from  Holy  Communion  any  person  who  may  have  contracted  a  mar- 
riage not  sanctioned  by  the  laws  and  canons  of  the  Anglican  Church. 
Nor  could  we,  in  justice  to  the  Old  Catholics,  admit  any  one  who 
would   be   debarred  from  communion  among  themselves. 

III. 

The  '  Christian  Catholic  Church  '  in  Switzerland,  which  has  adopted 
a  title  long  used  by  the  Church  in  that  country,  has  a  recognized  civil 
position  of  much  the  same  character  as  that  possessed  by  the  Old 
Catholics  of  Germany.  We  consider  that  it  is  a  body  now  sufficiently 
established  to  receive  the  assurance  of  the  same  sympathy  and  the 
offer  of  the  same  privileges  from  ourselves. 

IV. 

The  Old  Catholic  Community  in  Austria  has  been  recognized  by  the 
State  as  a  distinct  religious  association,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of 
May  20,  1874.1  Its  constitution  provides  for  the  presidency  of  a 
bishop  ;  but  no  election  has  as  yet  taken  place,  not  from  anyindifference 
on  the  part  of  its  members,  but  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  securing 
the  stipend  required  by  law.  In  the  mean  time  it  has  many  of  the 
rights  secured  by  law  to  the  German  body.  The  Austrian  Old  Catho- 
lics have  made  great  sacrifices,  and  deserve  great  sympathy  from  us, 
which  we  hope  may  be  expressed  in  a  practical  manner.  They  have, 
we  beheve,  an  important  future  before  them,  if  rightly  guided.  We  can- 
not, however,  regard  the  organization  in  xAustria  as  sufficiently  tried  and 
complete  to  warrant  a  more  formal  relation  on  our  part  at  the  present 
time. 

V. 

The  same  remark  applies  with  even  greater  force  to  the  smaller 
groups  of  brave  and  earnest  men  of  the  Latin  races,  driven  under 
somewhat  similar  circumstances  to  associate  themselves  in  separate 
congregations  in  Italy,  France,  Spain,  and  Portugal.  We  sympathize 
with  their  efforts  to  free  themselves  from  the  burden  of  unlawful  terms 
of  communion.  We  have  reason  to  believe  that  there  are  many  who 
think  with  them,  but  have  not  seen  the  way  to  follow  the  outward  steps 
which  they  have  taken.  We  trust  that  in  time  they  may  be  enabled 
to  adopt  such  sound  forms  of  doctrine  and  discipline  and  to  secure 
such  Catholic  organization  as  will  permit  us  to  give  them  a  fuller  rec- 
ognition. We  desire,  in  our  outlook  into  the  future,  to  call  to  mind 
1  Von  Schulte,  Der  Altkat^iolikiswus,  p.  435. 


30  The  Clmrch  Review. 

the  well-known  declaration  of  the  Gallican  clergy  of  1682,^  and  also 
the  advances  made  by  Archbishop  Wake  in  correspondence  with  the 
Doctors  of  the  Sorbonne,^  toward  establishing  a  basis  for  intercom- 
munion between  the  Churches  of  France  and  England.  If  some  such 
principles  could  now  be  revived,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  they 
would  be  welcomed  by  many  both  in  France  and  Italy,  and  they  might 
again  form  the  basis  for  hopeful  negotiations. 

In  concluding  this  portion  of  our  Report,  we  feel  it  our  duty  to  ex- 
press the  opinion  that  the  consecration,  by  bishops  of  our  Communion, 
of  a  bishop,  to  exercise  his  functions  in  a  foreign  country,  within  the 
limits  of  an  ancient  territorial  jurisdiction  and  over  the  natives  of  that 
country,  is  a  step  of  the  gravest  importance  and  fraught  with  enduring 
consequences,  the  issues  of  which  cannot  be  foreseen.  While  the  right 
of  bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  interpose  under  conditions  of  ex- 
treme necessity  has  always  been  acknowledged,  we  deprecate  any  ac- 
tion that  does  not  carefully  regard  primitive  and  established  principles 
of  jurisdiction  and  the  interests  of  the  whole  Anglican  Communion. 

VI. 

Lastly,  the  Committee  have  been  asked  at  the  last  moment  to  con- 
sider the  subject  of  the  orders  of  the  United  Brethren,  commonly  called 
the  Moravians.     At  the  last  Conference  a  number  of  the  bishops  '  were 

1  See  Bossuet's  Defense  de  la  Declaration  du  Clerge  de  France,  &^c,  2  vols.,  4to. 
Amsterdam,  1745,  and  Dupin's  Manuel  du  Droit  public  ecclesiastique  fraiigais,  pp. 
97-100,  ed.  5,  Paris,  Henri  Plon,  i860. 

2  Archbishop  Wake  wrote  as  follows  to  Mr.  Beauvoir,  on  Nov.  18,  17 18, 
in  regard  to  this  correspondence  :  '  If  we  could  once  divide  the  Gallican  Church 
[from  the  Roman],  a  reformation  in  other  matters  would  follow  as  a  matter  of 
course.  The  scheme  that  seems  to  me  most  likely  to  prevail,  is,  to  agree  in  the 
independence  (as  to  all  matters  of  authority)  of  every  national  Church  on  any 
others;  and  in  their  right  to  determine  all  matters  that  arise  within  themselves; 
and  for  points  of  doctrine,  to  agree  as  far  as  possible  in  all  articles  of  any  moment 
(as  in  effect  we  already  do,  or  easily  may) ;  and  for  other  matters,  to  allow  a  differ- 
ence till  God  shall  bring  us  to  a  union  in  those  also.  One  only  thing  should  be 
provided  for,  to  purge  out  of  the  public  offices  of  the  Church  such  things  as  hinder 
a  perfect  communion  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  that  so,  wherever  any  come 
from  us  to  them  or  from  them  to  us,  we  may  all  join  together  in  Prayers  and  the 
Holy  Sacraments  with  each  other.  In  our  Liturgy  there  is  nothing  but  what  they 
allow,  save  the  single  rubric  relating  to  the  Eucharist ;  in  theirs  nothing  but  what 
they  agree  may  be  laid  aside,  and  yet  the  public  offices  be  never  the  worse  or  more 
imperfect  for  the  want  of  it.  Such  a  scheme  as  this  I  take  to  be  a  more  proper 
ground  of  peace  at  the  beginning  than  to  go  to  more  particulars.' 

The  correspondence  of  Archbishop  Wake  with  Mr.  Beauvoir,  Dr.  Dupin,  Dr.  P. 
Piers  Girardin,  and  others,  is  printed  in  the  fourth  Appendix  to  Dr.  Maclaine's 
translation  of  Mosheim's  Church  History,  vol.  vi.,  pp.  126,  foil.,  London,  1828. 
The  above  letter  will  be  found  in  full  on  p.  172,  and  is  quoted  in  Rev.  G.  G.  Perry's 
History  of  the  English  Clmrch,  third  period,  p.  48,  London,  1887. 


Christian  Reunion.  31 

recommended  to  associate  with  themselves  such  learned  persons  as 
they  might  deem  eminently  qualified  to  assist  them  by  their  knowledge 
of  the  historical  difficulties  involved.'  ^  These  bishops  have  not  been 
able  to  act  upon  this  recommendation,  and  no  Report  is  before  the 
Conference.  Your  Committee,  in  the  short  time  allowed  them,  have 
not  found  it  possible  to  inquire  into  the  details  of  this  subject  with  such 
care  as  would  enable  them  to  propose  to  the  Conference  any  sufficient 
basis  for  the  expression  of  an  authoritative  opinion. 

It  must  not,  however,  be  overlooked,  that  from  time  to  time,  up  to 
the  present  day,  very  friendly  relations  have  existed  between  Moravians 
and  members  of  our  Communion.  In  their  greatest  trials  they  have 
received  from  eminent  English  bishops  and  Churchmen  the  sympathy 
and  support  due  to  a  zealous  body  of  Christians,  imbued  with  a  primi- 
tive spirit,  and  claiming  to  possess  a  valid  Episcopate. 

The  labors  of  Moravian  missionaries  are  known  to  all  the  world. 
We  should  therefore  welcome  any  clearer  illustration  of  their  history 
and  actual  status  on  the  part  of  their  own  divines. 

The  subjects  committed  to  the  consideration  of  this  Committee  have 

embraced,  as  w.'U  be  seen,  a  very  wide  range  of  interests,  and  we  have 

reluctantly  been   compelled,   on  this   account,  to  confine   our   Report 

almost  entirely  to  the  bodies  specified  in  the  terms  of  our  commission. 

Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

E.  Harold  Winton,  Chair??ian. 


No.   II.  — EASTERN    CHURCHES. 

Report  of  the  Committee  ^  appointed  to  consider  the  relation  of  the  Angli- 
can Communion  to  the  Eastern  Churches. 

Your  Committee  regard  the  friendly  feelings  manifested  toward  our 
Church  by  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Communion  as  a  matter  for  deep 
thankfulness.  These  feelings  inspire  the  hope  that  at  no  distant  time 
closer  relations  may  be  established  between  the  two  Churches.  Your 
Committee,  however,  are  of  opinion  that  any  hasty  or  ill-considered  step 
in  this  direction  would  only  retard  the  accomplishment  of  this  hope. 
Our  expectations  of  nearer  fellowship  are  founded  upon  the   friendly 

1  Oris^in  and  History  of  the  Latrtbeth  Conferences,  p.  137. 

2  Names  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  :  — 

Bishop  of  Winchester  {Chairman).  Bishop  of  Limerick. 
Bishop  Blyth.  "       Mcath. 

Bishop  of  Gibraltar.  "       Springfield. 

"       Iowa.  "       Travancore 


32  The  ChMrch  Review, 

tone  of  the  correspondence  which  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
his  predecessors  have  held  from  time  to  time  with  patriarchs  of  the 
Orthodox  Church,  and  upon  the  cordiaHty  of  the  welcome  given  by  the 
heads  of  that  Church  to  Anglican  bishops  and  clergy,  such  as  the  Bishop 
of  Gibraltar,  who  have  travelled  in  the  East.  Additional  grounds  of 
hope  are  furnished  by  the  visit  of  Archbishop  ^  Lycurgus  to  England  in 
1870,  by  the  conversation  which  passed  between  him  and  the  present 
Bishop  of  Winchester  at  Ely,  by  the  words  which  Archbishop  Lycurgus 
used  at  the  conclusion  of  the  second  Conference  held  at  Bonn ;  ^  and 
by  the  request  which  the  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  recently  ad- 
dressed to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that  the  Anglican  Bishopric 
in  Jerusalem  should  be  reconstituted,  and  that  the  headquarters  of  the 
bishop  should  be  placed  in  that  city  rather  than  at  Beyrout  or  elsewhere. 

We  reflect  with  thankfulness  that  there  exist  no  bars,  such  as  are  pre- 
sented to  communion  with  the  Latins  by  the  formulated  assertion  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church  residing  in  the  person  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff, 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  Liimaculate  Conception,  and  other  novel  dogmas 
imposed  by  the  decrees  of  later  councils. 

We  must  congratulate  the  Christian  world  that,  through  the  research 
of  a  Greek  metropolitan,  literature  has  been  lately  enriched  by  the  re- 
covery of  an  ancient  document  which  throws  unexpected  light  upon  the 
early  development  of  ecclesiastical  organization. 

It  would  not  be  right,  however,  to  disguise  from  ourselves  the  hin- 
drances which  exist  on  either  side.  The  first  and  most  formidable  of 
these  is  the  disputed  clause  inserted  in  the  Creed  of  Constantinople, 
erroneously  called  the  Nicene  Creed,  without  any  Conciliar  authority, 
by  the  Latin  Church.  This  clause,  which  has  the  prescription  of  cen- 
turies, and  is  capable  of  being  explained  in  an  orthodox  sense,  it  may 
be  very  difficult  to  remove.  Another  barrier  to  full  understanding 
between  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church  and  ourselves  would  be  the  ex- 
treme importance  attached  by  that  Church  to  trine  immersion  in  the 
rite  of  Baptism,  which  practice,  however,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 

1  Lycurgus,  late  Archbishop  of  Syra  and  Tenos. 

2  At  the  end  of  the  Conference  at  Ely  (1870),  Archbishop  Lycurgus  said, — 
'When  I  return  to  Greece  I  will  say  that  the  Church  of  England  is  not  like 

other  Protestant  bodies.  I  will  say  that  it  is  a  sound  Catholic  Church  very  like  our 
own  ;  and  I  trust  that  by  friendly  discussion  union  between  the  two  Churches  may 
be  brought  about.' 

At  the  end  of  the  Bonn  Conference  (1875),  ^^  ^'^'^^  ^'^  ^'"-  ^^^'^  Dollinger, — 
*  In  the  name  of  all  those  of  my  own  Communion  I  thank  you,  Mr.  President,  for 
your  marvellous  efforts  in  the  work  of  reuniting  the  several  Churches,  of  bringing 
together  again  the  so  numerous  divisions  of  the  Rock  of  our  Redeemer,  Our  joy 
is  full  ;  and  there  will  be  great  joy  in  our  homes  also.  We  earnestly  pray  God  for 
His  further  blessing.' 


Christia7t  Reunion.  33 

our  Church  from  formally  sanctioning.  We,  on  the  other  hand  ex- 
perience a  somewhat  similar  difficulty  as  regards  the  Eastern  rite  of 
Confirmation,  which  we  can  hardly  consider  equivalent  to  ours,  inasmuch 
as  it  omits  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands,  and  is  usually  conferred 
upon  unconscious  infants ;  yet  we  do  not  regard  this  as  requiring  mem- 
bers of  the  Orthodox  Church  to  receive  our  Confirmation.  It  would  be 
difficult  for  us  to  enter  into  more  intimate  relations  with  that  Church  so 
long  as  it  retains  the  use  of  icons,  the  invocation  of  the  saints,  and  the 
cultus  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  ;  although  it  is  but  fair  to  state  that  the 
Greeks,  in  sanctioning  the  use  of  pictorial  representations  for  the  pur- 
pose of  promoting  devotion,  expressly  disclaim  the  sin  of  idolatry,  which 
they  conceive  would  attach  to  the  bowing  down  before  sculptured  or 
molten  images.  Moreover,  the  decrees  of  the  Second  Council  of  Nicsea, 
sanctioning  the  use  of  icons,  were  framed  in  a  spirit  of  reaction  against 
the  rationalizing  measures,  as  they  were  regarded,  of  the  iconoclastic 
emperors.  The  Greeks  might  be  reminded  that  the  decrees  of  that 
Council,  having  been  deliberately  rejected  seven  years  afterward  by  the 
Council  of  Frankfort,  and  not  having  been  accepted  by  the  Latin  Church 
till  after  the  lapse  of  two  centuries,  and  then  only  under  Papal  influence, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  binding  upon  the  Church. 

Your  Committee  would  impress  upon  their  fellow-Christians  the  pro- 
priety of  abstaining  from  all  efforts  to  induce  individual  members  of  the 
Orthodox  Eastern  Church  to  leave  their  own  Communion.  If  some  be 
dissatisfied  with  its  teaching  or  usages,  and  find  a  lack  of  spiritual  life  in 
its  worship,  they  should  be  advised  not  to  leave  the  Church  of  their 
baptism,  but  by  remaining  in  it  to  endeavor  to  become  centres  of  life 
and  light  to  their  own  people,  —  more  especially  as  the  Orthodox  Eastern 
Church  has  never  committed  itself  to  any  theory  that  would  make  it 
impossible  to  reconsider  and  revise  its  standards  and  practice. 

Your  Committee  think  it  desirable  that  the  heads  of  that  Communion 
should  be  supplied  with  some  authoritative  document  setting  forth  the 
historical  facts  relating  to  our  orders  and  our  position  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  as  much  misconception  appears  still  to  prevail  on  this  subject. 
Your  Committee  feel  that  the  position  which  England  now  occupies  in 
Cyprus  and  in  Egypt  places  in  our  hands  exceptional  opportunities  of 
elevating  the  moral  and  spiritual  life  of  our  Eastern  brethren.  Espe- 
cially may  this  be  done  by  introducing  or  promoting  higher  education ; 
any  help  given  in  this  way  we  have  reason  to  believe  would  be  warmly 
welcomed.  We  rejoice  to  know  that  schools  have  lately  been  estab- 
lished at  Constantinople  and  elsewhere  for  the  purpose  of  supplying 
education  to  those  who  are  in  training  for  the  ministry.  In  the  more 
general  diffusion  of  knowledge    among  the  instructors  of  the  people 

3 


34  The  Church  Review, 

lies  the  best  hope  of  that  mutual  understanding  and  .esteem  for  which 
the  heads  of  the  Orthodox  Church  have  shown  so  much  desire. 

Your  Committee  cannot  be  expected  to  deal  separately  with  the  other 
Churches  of  the  East,  among  which  the  Armenian  appears  to  be  the 
largest  and  most  important.  Approaches  have  been  made  to  us  from 
time  to  time  by  bishops  and  other  representatives  of  this  Communion, 
appealing  for  aid  in  support  of  educational  projects  for  the  instruction 
of  their  own  people.  The  Armenian  Church  lies  under  the  imputation 
of  heresy ;  but  it  has  always  protested  against  this  imputation,  affirming 
the  charge  to  have  arisen  from  a  misconception  of  its  formularies.  The 
departure  from  orthodoxy  may  perhaps  have  been  more  apparent  than 
real ;  and  the  erroneous  element  in  its  creed  appears  now  to  be  gradually 
losing  its  hold  upon  the  moral  and  religious  consciousness  of  the  Arme- 
nian people. 

In  regard  to  other  Eastern  communities,  such  as  the  Coptic,  Abys- 
sinian, Syrian,  and  Chaldean,  your  Committee  consider  that  our  position 
in  the  East  involves  some  obligations.  And  if  these  communities  have 
fallen  into  error,  and  show  a  lack  of  moral  and  spiritual  life,  we  must 
recollect  that  but  for  them  the  light  of  Christianity  in  these  countries 
would  have  been  utterly  extinguished,  and  that  they  have  suffered  for 
many  centuries  from  cruel  oppression  and  persecution.  If  we  should 
have  opportunity,  our  aim  should  be  to  improve  their  mental,  moral, 
and  religious  condition,  and  to  induce  them  to  return  to  the  unity  of  the 
faith  without  prejudice  to  their  liberty.  This  we  take  to  be  the  purpose 
of  the  Assyrian  Mission  set  on  foot  by  the  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  continued  by  his  successor. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  East 
advance  is  slow,  and  even  in  the  West  we  find  differences  perpetuate 
themselves,  owing  to  national  peculiarities,  hereditary  prejudices,  and 
other  causes,  in  spite  of  real  wish  for  unity.  We  think  that  Christians 
need  to  be  cautioned  against  impatience  in  expecting  quick  results. 
Such  impatience  argues  imperfect  trust  in  the  ultimate  fulfilment  of 
our  Lord's  prayer  for  His  people,  that  they  *all  may  be  One.' 
Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

E.  Harold  Winton,  Chairman. 


Christian  Reunion. 


35 


No.    12.  — AUTPIORrrATIVIC    STANDARDS. 

Report  of  the  Comtnittcc  ^  appointed  to  consider  the  Subject  of  Authorita- 
tive Standards  of  Doctrine  and  Worship. 

In  considering  the  subject  of  the  Authoritative  Standards  of  Doctrine 
and  Worship,  which  are  the  primary  means  of  securing  internal  union 
among  ourselves,  and  of  setting  forth  our  Faith  before  the  rest  of 
Christendom,  we  acknowledge  first  of  all  wnth  deep  thankfulness  to 
Almighty  God  the  vital  and  growing  unity  of  the  great  Communion  to 
which  we  belong. 

We  acknowledge  also  with  the  same  heartfelt  thankfulness  the  in- 
creasing intercourse  which  is  taking  place  between  our  own  Churches 
and  other  Churches  of  Christendom,  and  the  extension  of  our  own 
Communion  into  many  non-Christian  countries,  to  which  God  has 
especially  called  us  to  minister  by  the  diffusion  of  the  English-speaking 
race  throughout  the  world. 

The  consideration  of  the  new  conditions  thus  created  seems  to  call 
for  a  careful  statement  of  our  own  position  in  regard  to  authoritative 
standards  of  doctrine  and  worship. 

This  statement  is  divided  into  three  parts  :  first,  as  to  standards  of 
doctrine  and  worship  which  unite  us  with  the  great  body  of  the  Church 
Universal ;  second,  as  to  those  which  regulate  our  internal  union  or 
should  be  imposed  upon  Missionary  Churches ;  third,  as  to  a  manual 
of  doctrine  for  general  use,  but  which  should  not  be  authoritative. 

I. 

We  recognize  before  all  things,  and  amid  all  discouragements  and 
divisions,  the  great  bond  of  an  essential  unity  which  exists  among  all 
Christians  who  own  the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Head  and 
King,  who  accept  the  paramount  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  who  con- 
fess the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene  Faith,  and  who  acknowledge  one 
Baptism   into   the  Name  of  the   Blessed   Trinity. 

1  Names  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  , — 

Bishop  of  Ely  [Chairman).  Bishop  of  Meath. 

"      Aberdeen.  "  Nassau. 

"      Albany.  '♦  Qu'Appelle. 

"       Arkansas.  "  Rupertsland. 

"       Derry.  "  Salisbury. 

"      Dover.  "  S.  David's. 

"       Edinburgh.  "  Sydney. 

"       Grahamstown.  "  Western  New  York. 
Bishop  in  Japan. 


^6  The  Church  Reifiew. 

But  we  cannot  regard  this  measure  of  unity  as  adequately  fulfilling 
our  Lord's  prayer  that  His  followers  should  be  one,  and  we  feel,  there- 
fore, that  it  is  our  duty  to  explain  our  own  principles  as  regards  stand- 
ards of  doctrine  and  worship,  in  the  humble  hope  of  preparing  the  way, 
so  far  as  in  us  lies,  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom. 

We  have  a  duty  to  the  Church  Universal ;  we  have  a  duty  also 
toward  those  who  are  now  distinctly  within  our  own  Communion  or 
who  may  hereafter  be  so  closely  allied  to  it  as  to  form  practically  one 
body  with  ourselves. 

As  in  former  Conferences,^  we  declare  that  we  continue  '  united  under 
one  Divine  Head  in  the  fellowship  of  the  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  holding  the  one  Faith  revealed  in  Holy  Writ,  defined  in  the 
Creeds,  maintained  by  the  primitive  Church,'  and  '  afiirmed  by  the 
undisputed  '  Ecumenical  *  Councils.' 

In  defining  our  own  position  more  expUcitly,  we  recognize,  with  the 
general  consent  of  the  Fathers,  that  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  '  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,'  and  are  the 
rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  all  Christian  doctrine. 

In  addition  to  the  Creed  commonly  called  the  Nicene  Creed,  to 
which  we  have  already  referred,  we,  as  a  part  of  the  Western  Church, 
have  a  common  inheritance  in  the  '  Apostles'  Creed,'  confessed  by  us 
all  in  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  In  like  manner  we  accept  the  hymn 
Qiiicunque  Vu/f,  whether  or  not  recited  in  the  public  worship  of  our 
Churches,  as  resting  upon  certain  warrant  of  Scripture,  and  as  most 
useful,  both  at  home  and  in  our  missions,  in  ascertaining  and  defining 
the  fimdamental  mysteries  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  and  of  the  Incarnation 
of  our  Blessed  Lord,  and  thus  guarding  believers  from  lapsing  mto 
heresy. 

In  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
while  we  believe  that  there  is  no  fundamental  diversity  of  faith  between 
the  Churches  of  the  East  and  West,^  we  recognize  the  historical  fact 
that  the  clause  Filioqtie  makes  no  part  of  the  Nicene  Symbol  as  set 
forth  by  the  authority  of  the  undivided  Church. 

We  are  of  opinion  that,  as  opportunity  arises,  it  would  be  well  to 
revise  the  English  version  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  of  the  Quicumjue 
Viilt. 

1  See  Origin  and  History  of  the  Lambeth  Conferences,  pp.  62  and  119.  S.  P.  C.  K. 
1888. 

2  The  Committee  beg  to  refer,  in  illustration  of  this  statement,  to  the  important 
propositions,  accepted  by  members  both  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches, 
which  were  agreed  to  at  the  Reunion  Conference  held  at  Bonn,  Aug.  16,  1875, 
under  the  Presidency  of  Dr.  J.  J.  I.  von  Dollinger.  See  the  Report  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings, ^'c.y  with  a  Preface  by  Dr.  Liddon.—  Pickering,  London,  1876,  pp.  103, 
104. 


Christian  Rcii}iio7i. 


37 


We  suggest  to  the  Conference  that  the  President  be  requested  to 
appoint  a  Committee  for  this  purpose. 

With  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  Ecumenical  Councils  our  Com- 
munion has  always  recognized  the  decisions  of  the  first  four  ( 'ouncils 
on  matters  of  faith,  nor  is  there  any  ])(jint  of  dugma  in  which  it  dis- 
agrees with  the  teaching  of  the  fifth  and  sixth. 

The  Second  Council  of  Nicsea,  commonly  called  the  Seventh  Council 
is,  however,  not  undisputed,  and  while  we  recognize  the  historical  cir- 
cumstances of  the  eighth  century,  which  naturally  led  to  the  strong 
protest  against  iconoclasm  made  there,  it  is  our  duty  to  assert  that  our 
Church  has  never  accepted  the  teaching  of  that  Council  in  reference  to 
the  veneration  of  sacred  pictures. 

II. 

From  the  standards  of  doctrine  of  the  Universal  C'hurch  which  the 
whole  Anglican  Communion  has  always  accepted  ^  we  now  pass  to  those 
standards  of  doctrine  and  worship  which  are  specially  the  heritage  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  which  are,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  re- 
ceived by  all  her  sister  and  daughter  Churches.  These  are  the  Prayer- 
Book  with  its  Catechism,  the  Ordinal,  .and  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of 
Religion, 

All  these  are  subscribed  by  our  clergy  at  ordination  or  admission  to 
office,  but  the  XXXIX.  Articles  are  not  imposed  upon  any  person  as 
a  condition  of  communion.  With  respect  to  the  Prayer-Book  and 
Articles,  we  do  not  consider  it  an  indispensable  condition  of  inter- 
communion that  they  should  be  everywhere  accepted  in  their  original 
form,  or  that  the  interpretation  put  upon  them  by  local  courts  or  pro- 
vincial tribunals  should  be  received  by  every  branch  or  province  of  the 
Anglican  Communion.  In  illustration  of  this  principle,  we  would  refer 
to  the  differences  from  the  English  Order  of  the  Administration  of  the 
Holy  Communion  which  have  long  existed  in  the  Scottish  and  Ameri- 

^  Let  Preachers  take  care  that  they  never  teach  anything  in  a  sermon  which 
they  wish  to  be  religiously  held  and  believed  by  the  people,  except  what  is  in 
accord  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament  and  what  the  Catholic 
Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  collected  from  the  same  doctrine.  —  Canon  of 
1 57 1,  concerning  Preachers. 

Such  person  &c.  .  .  .  shall  not  in  anywise  have  authority  or  power  to  order, 
determine,  or  adjudge  any  matter  or  cause  to  be  heresie,  but  onely  such  as  hereto- 
fore have  been  determined,  ordered,  or  adjudged  to  be  heresie,  by  the  authority  of 
the  Canonical  Scriptures  or  by  the  first  four  general  Councils  or  any  of  them,  or  by 
any  other  general  Council  wherein  the  same  was  declared  heresie  by  the  express 
and  plain  words  of  the  said  Canonical  Scriptures,  or  such  as  hereafter  shall  be 
ordered,  judged,  or  determined  to  be  heresie,  by  the  High  Court  of  Parliament  of 
this  realm,  with  the  assent  of  the  Clergy  in  their  Convocation  ;  anything  in  this 
Act  contained  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  —  i  Eliz.  i,  §  XXXVI. 


38  The  Church  Review, 

can  Churches,  and  to  the  facts  that  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of  Rehgion 
were  only  accepted  in  America  in  the  year  1801  with  some  variations, 
and  in  Scotland  in  1804,  and  that  the  Church  of  Ireland,  as  well  as  the 
Church  in  America,  has  introduced  some  modifications  into  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer. 

We,  however,  strongly  deprecate  any  further  material  variation  in  the 
text  of  the  existing  Sacramental  offices  of  the  Church,  or  of  the  Ordinal, 
than  is  at  present  recognized  among  us,  unless  with  the  advice  of  some 
Conference  or  Council  representing  the  whole  Communion. 

With  regard  to  the  daily  offices  and  such  further  forms  of  service  as 
the  exigencies  of  different  Churches  or  countries  may  demand,  we  feel 
that  they  may  be  safely  left  for  the  present  to  the  action  of  the  bishops 
of  each  Province.  We  do  not  demand  a  rigid  uniformity,  but  we  desire 
to  see  the  prevalence  of  a  spirit  of  mutual  and  sympathetic  concession, 
which  will  prevent  the  growth  of  substantial  divergences  between  dif- 
ferent portions  of  our  Communion.  With  regard  to  those  Dioceses 
which  are  not  yet  united  into  Provinces,  we  recommend  that  the  Bishop 
of  the  Diocese  should  not  act  in  the  way  of  revision  of,  or  additions  to, 
such  offices  without  the  advice  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  ;  or  in 
the  case  of  foreign  missionary  jurisdictions  of  the  American  Church, 
without  the  advice  of  its  presiding  bishop. 

With  regard  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of  Religion,  we  thank  God  for 
the  wisdom  which  guided  our  fathers,  in  difficult  times,  in  framing  state- 
ments of  doctrine,  for  the  most  part  accurate  in  their  language  and  re- 
served and  moderate  in  their  definitions.  Even  when  speaking  most 
strongly  and  under  the  pressure  of  great  provocation,  our  Communion 
has  generally  refrained  from  anathemas  upon  opponents,  and  we  desire 
in  this  to  follow  those  who  have  preceded  us  in  the  Faith.  The  omis- 
sion of  a  few  clauses  in  a  few  of  the  Articles  would  render  the  whole 
body  free  from  any  imputation  of  injustice  or  harshness  toward  those 
who  differ  from  us.  At  the  same  time  we  feel  that  the  Articles  are  not 
all  of  equal  value,  that  they  are  not,  and  do  not  profess  to  be,  a  com- 
plete statement  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  that,  from  the  temporary  and 
local  circumstances  under  which  they  were  composed,  they  do  not 
always  meet  the  requirements  of  Churches  founded  under  wholly 
different  conditions. 

Some  modification  of  these  Articles  may  therefore  naturally  be  ex- 
pected on  the  part  of  newly  constituted  Churches,  and  particularly  in 
non-Christian  lands.  But  we  consider  that  it  should  be  a  condition  of 
the  recognition  of  such  Churches  as  in  complete  intercommunion  with 
our  own,  and  especially  of  their  receiving  from  us  our  Episcopal  succes- 
sion, that  we  should  first  receive  from  them  satisfactory  evidence  that 
they  hold  substantially  the  same  type  of  doctrine  with  ourselves.     More 


Chrisliaii  Reu7iion.  39 

particularly  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  clergy  of  such  Churches  should 
accept  articles  in  accordance  with  the  ^jositive  statements  of  our  own 
stantlards  of  doctrine  and  worship,  particularly  on  the  substance  and 
rule  of  Faith,  on  the  state  and  redempticjn  of  man,  on  the  office  of  the 
Church,  and  on  the  Sacraments  and  other  special  ordinances  of  our 
holy  religion. 

III. 

In  the  foregoing  resolutions  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  a  con- 
sideration of  existing  authoritative  formularies,  and  to  such  as  may 
serve  the  like  use  under  particular  conditions.  We  are  unable,  after 
careful  consideration  of  the  subject,  to  recommend  that  any  new  decla- 
ration of  doctrine  should,  at  the  present  time,  be  put  forth  by  authority. 
We  are,  however,  of  opinion  that  the  time  has  come  when  an  effort 
should  be  made  to  compose  a  manual  for  teachers  which  should  contain 
a  summary  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  generally  received  among 
us.  Such  a  manual  would  draw  its  statements  of  doctrine  from  authori- 
tative documents  already  existing,  but  would  exhibit  them  in  a  com- 
pleter and  more  systematic  form.  It  would  also  naturally  include 
some  explanation  of  the  services  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church.  The 
whole  might  be  preceded  by  a  historical  sketch  of  the  position  and 
claims  of  our  Communion. 

Such  a  manual  would,  we  believe,  be  of  great  service  both  in  main- 
taining the  type  of  doctrine  to  which  we  have  referred,  and  in  enabling 
members  of  other  Churches  to  form  a  just  opinion  of  our  doctrines  and 
worship.  We  suggest  that  His  Grace,  the  President,  be  requested  to 
nominate  three  or  more  bishops  to  undertake  such  a  work,  and  if  it 
seem  good  to  him  and  to  the  other  archbishops,  metropolitans,  and 
presiding  bishops  of  the  Church,  that  they  give  the  work,  when  com- 
pleted, the  sanction  of  their  imprimatur.  We  do  not  suggest  that  the 
Conference  should  be  asked  to  undertake  this  work,  or  that  it  should 
be  regarded  as  an  authoritative  standard  of  the  Church. 

Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

Alwyne,  Ely,   Chairman. 


4.0  The  Church  Review. 


THE   BASIS   FOR   CHRISTIAN    REUNION    PROPOSED 
BY   THE   LAMBETH    CONFERENCE   OF    i 


1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, as  "  containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation',' 
and  as  being  the  rule  a7td  ultimate  standard  of  Faith. 

2.  The  Apostles  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol;  and 
the  Nicene  Creed,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Chris- 
tian Faith. 

3.  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Himself, 
—  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  —  ministered 
with  unfailing  use  ^/Christ's  words  of  institution,  and 
of  the  elements  ordained  by  Him. 

4.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the 
methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the 
nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  His 
Church, 


Christian  Reunion.  4.1 

Cl)e  i^ijStoric  episcopate  asi  a  bagis;  of 
ItJcuiuou* 

Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.  [Presbyterian], 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

THE  aspirations  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  that  have 
been  felt  by  large  numbers  of  Christians  in  most,  if  not 
all,  the  denominations,  have  reached  the  fullest  and  strongest 
expression  in  recent  times  in  the  four' articles  proposed  by 
the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States,  Oct.  20,  1886,  as  a  basis  of  approach  for 
such  reunion.  These  were  subsequently  adopted,  with  slight 
modifications,  in  1888,  by  the  Lambeth  Conference,  represent- 
ing the  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters  throughout  the 
world. 

In  January,  1887,  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  I  said  that 
these  articles  **  are  in  my  judgment  entirely  satisfactory,  pro- 
vided nothing  more  is  meant  by  their  authors  than  their  lan- 
guage expressly  conveys." 

In  September  last  I  reiterated  this  statement ;  namely :  — 

The  four  terms  that  are  set  forth  therein  as  '  essential  to  the  restora- 
tion of  unity  among  the  divided  branches  of  Christendom  '  are  in  my 
judgment  entirely  satisfactory,  provided  nothing  more  is  meant  by  their 
authors  than  their  language  expressly  conveys.  There  is  room  for  some 
difference  of  interpretation ;  but  these  terms  ought  to  be  received  in  the 
same  generous  manner  in  which  they  are  offered,  in  the  hope  that  the 
differences  will  be  removed  by  conference  and  discussion  [  Whither  ? 
p.  263]. 

I  have  seen  no  reason  to  change  the  judgment  then  ex- 
pressed. The  discussions  of  the  subject  that  have  been  carried 
on  from  many  different  points  of  view,  and  the  happy  results 
of  the  conferences  that  have  thus  far  been  held,  have  confirmed 
it.  The  evolutions  that  are  now  taking  place  in  the  different 
denominations  in  the  revision  of  Prayer-Book  and  of  Creed,  in 
the  reorganization  of  Christian  life  and  work,  and  in  the  adop- 
tion of  new  methods  for  evangelization  and  Christian  nurture, 
all  point    in    the  same  direction,  and  show  that  the  Christian 


42  The  Chui'ch  Review. 

denominations  are  moving  under  the  sway  of  an  irresistible 
impulse  into  closer  combinations  that  will  ere  long  result  in 
federation,  and  at  last  in  consolidation.  I  shall  spend  no  time 
upon  the  first  three  terms,  for  there  will  be  little  difficulty  in 
agreeing  upon  them.  I  shall  use  the  space  assigned  me  for 
the   discussion  of  the  real  point  of  difficulty.^ 

The  great  difficulty  to  be  overcome  is  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate. We  ought  not  to  be  surprised  at  this,  for  the  struggles 
of  British  Christianity  since  the  Reformation  have  been  centred 
in  questions  of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church. 
The  debates  about  ecclesiastical  government  have  been  com- 
plicated with  the  coutests  over  political  government.  The 
historical  student  traces  the  development  of  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment in  Great  Britain  and  America  in  the  midst  of  the 
evolutions  of  civil  government.  •  Political  parties  and  ecclesi- 
astical parties  have  to  a  very  great  extent  coincided  in  the  his- 
tory of  Great  Britain. 

The  Historic  Episcopate  has  been  historically  complicated 
with  the  development  of  the  intricate  relations  of  Church  and 
State.  The  same  difficult  relation  is  now  one  of  the  chief  in- 
fluences at  work  in  favor  of  restoring  the  Historic  Episcopate 
to  those  Churches  that  have  neglected  it  or  discarded  it. 

I.    ChiircJi  and  State. 

Even  the  greatest  champions  of  the  jure  divino  theory  of 
Church  government  have  not  escaped  the  subtile  Erastianism 
which,  even  when  it  declines  to  put  the  supreme  authority  over 
the  Church  in  the  hands  of  the  civil  magistrate,  nevertheless 
insensibly  assimilates  the  operations  of  Church  courts  to  the 
civil  courts,  and  the  methods  of  administration  of  bishops  and 
presbyters  to  those  of  magistrates  and  parliaments.  The  Amer- 
ican Republic,  when  it  severed  for  the  most  part  the  Church 

1  I  feel  very  keenly  the  difficulties  involved  in  the  discussion  of  such  a  delicate 
question  within  the  pages  of  a  Review  that  represents  another  body  of  Christians 
than  the  denomination  to  which  I  belong.  I  fear  lest  I  may  say  something  that 
may  be  misunderstood,  or  may  give  offence  to  those  who  may  differ  from  me. 
This  article  was  written  in  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  Editor.  It  is  my 
sincere  desire  and  earnest  purpose  to  remove  misapprehensions  and  misunder- 
standings, and  to  promote  so  far  as  may  be  the  reunion  of  Christendom  I  am 
endeavoring  to  mediate,  and  my  effort  should  be  judged  from  this  point  of  view.  I 
shall  speak  in  the  first  person ;  for  it  is  important  that  no  one  should  say  that 
I  assume  to  represent  any  one  but  myself. 


Christian  Rcuniofi.  43 

from  the  State,  did  not  alto^ctlicr  avoid  the  influence  of  civil 
government  upon  ecclesiastical  L^overnment.  It  is  a  plcasin<>- 
fiction  that  the  divorce  of  Church  and  State  is  complete  in  the 
United  States.  Hut  it  becomes  evident  so  soon  as  strife  breaks 
out  in  any  congregation,  or  an  irreconcilable  battle  is  waged 
between  parties  in  the  denominations,  that  the  civil  courts  are 
the  courts  of  last  resort  even  for  ecclesiastical  affairs.  And  now 
that  the  Church  is  becoming  more  ethical  and  less  dogmatic, 
more  practical  and  less  theoretical,  it  is  plain  that  the  Church 
and  the  State  must  come  to  an  understanding  upon  the  great 
questions  of  Public  Education,  National  Religion,  Marriage 
and  Divorce  ;  the  care  of  the  sick,  the  disabled,  the  poor,  and  the 
criminal  classes;  and  in  the  entire  field  of  social  and  industrial 
life.  This  fiction  of  a  divorce  of  Church  and  State  has  been 
a  will-o'-the-wisp  that  has  brought  us  into  many  difficult  and 
dangerous  places.  It  is  necessary  that  Church  and  State  should 
come  into  closer  union,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  great  aims 
of  humanity  as  well  as  of  Christianity.  The  Church  cannot 
abstain  from  those  ethical  questions  that  are  the  controlling 
principles  of  all  sound  government.  There  must  be  harmony 
between  Church  and  State,  or  else  there  will  be  conflict.  The 
worst  position  that  can  be  taken  by  the  Church  is  indifference, 
isolation,  and  abstinence  from  the  religious  and  moral  obliga- 
tions of  public  education,  good  citizenship,  sound  government, 
social  life,  and  public  morality.  Christian  ethics  comprehend 
all  these  things.  If  the  Church  in  America  has  neglected  them, 
it  is  because  it  has  not  apprehended  and  practised  the  heights 
and  breadths  of  Christian  ethics.  The  evil  effects  of  the  divorce 
of  Church  and  State  are  making  it  evident  to  thinking  men  in 
all  denominations  that  in  some  way  a  concord  must  be  estab- 
lished between  the  denominations,  in  order  that  the  State  may 
not  obstruct  the  advance  of  Christianity  in  the  nation,  and  put 
itself  in  opposition  to  the  Church  in  the  great  religious  and 
moral  needs  of  humanity. 

The  so-called  American  theory  of  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State  has  had  two  results,  i.  On  the  one  side,  the  State 
has  been  relieved  from  the  burdens  of  the  support  of  the  Church 
and  the  duties  of  religion.  The  influence  of  the  Church  upon 
the  State  is  no  longer  direct,  immediate,  and  pervasive  as  a 
recognized  force  influencing  all  actions ;  but  it  is  indirect, 
subtile,  and  mediate,  through  the  influence  of  the  Church  upon 


44 


The  Church  Review. 


its  adherents  among  the  various  officers  of  the  government. 
The  State  has  been  reheved  of  the  support  of  the  Church,  and 
also  to  a  great  extent  of  higher  education  and  of  pubHc  chari- 
ties. This  enormous  burden  has  thus  been  shifted  from  the 
shoulders  of  the  whole  people  to  the  shoulders  of  the  pious, 
benevolent,  and  self-sacrificing  citizens.  The  great  mass  of  the 
indifferent,  selfish,  and  irreligious,  whether  poor,  comfortable, 
or  rich,  escape  these  burdens,  which  then  fall  upon  a  portion 
of  the  community  in  double  measure.  It  is  evident  that  many 
of  the  largest  estates  in  America  are  in  the  hands  of  men  who 
do  little,  if  anything,  for  public  charity,  higher  education,  and 
religion.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  enormous  savings  they  make 
in  this  respect  when  compared  with  the  land-owners  and  bond- 
holders of  other  countries.  The  great  moral,  religious,  and 
educational  forces  which  are  most  potent  to  protect  their  per- 
sons and  property  are  supported  by  others ;  and  to  this  extent 
many  of  our  millionnaires  are  as  truly  dependent  upon  public 
charity  as  the  beggars  at  their  gates. 

The  United  States  Congress  and  the  legislatures  of  the  seve- 
ral States  pay  little,  if  any,  attention  to  the  desires  of  the  Chris- 
tian public,  as  expressed  in  the  various  Church  courts.  They 
are  much  more  influenced  by  an  organized  body  of  merchants, 
whether  these  are  composed  of  a  few  men  at  the  head  of  great 
trusts,  or  of  many  voters  in  various  trade  associations.  The 
splitting  up  of  the  Church  into  so  many  conflicting  denomina- 
tions, and  the  organization  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  without  regard 
to  the  territorial  divisions  of  the  towns  and  States,  have  marred 
their  influence.  This  has  been  overcome  in  recent  years  in 
several  of  the  denominations  by  making  the  ecclesiastical  terri- 
tories correspond  with  the  political.  But  much  more  needs  to 
be  accomplished  in  this  regard.  It  is  the  better  organization 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  that  gives  it  more  influence  with 
politicians.  Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves  by  imagining  that  it 
is  all  due  to  the  wiles  of  the  Jesuits,  or  to  the  power  of  priests 
to  influence  voters. 

The  Church  has  lost  Immensely  in  its  influence  upon  the 
State.  The  Protestant  Churches  have  less  influence  than  the 
Roman  Catholic,  notwithstanding  the  Protestants  are  vastly 
greater  in  numerical  strength,  in  wealth,  in  institutions  of  learn- 
ing, and  in  literature. 

2.  The  Church  has  lost  largely  in  its  power  to  influence  the 


Christiaji  Reunion. 


45 


State,  but  the  State  has  gained   largely  in  its  influence  over  the 
Church.     This  has  been  in  two  directions:  — 

(^(i)  The  State  has  the  supreme  atithority  over  the  Church 
in  all  material  affairs,  —  over  its  property,  so  far  as  the  Church 
is  a  visible  organization ;  and  over  its  communicants  and  its 
office-bearers,  as  having  rights  of  contract,  and  as  having 
character  and  reputation.  It  is  really  only  so  far  as  the  Church 
is  immaterial  that  it  is  exempt  from  the  authority  of  the  State. 
The  Church  has  no  more  freedom  than  a  Masonic  lodge,  or  an 
association  of  liquor-dealers. 

{b)  The  State  has  also  a  subtile  influence  upon  the  Church. 
The  civil  government  and  the  civil  courts  have  exerted  an 
irresistible  influence  upon  the  ecclesiastical  government  and 
the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  thereby  modified  to  a  great  ex- 
tent  all    religious  organizations  in  the  United  States. 

The  Episcopal  Churches  have  the  executive  department  of 
Church  government  efficiently  organized  and  ever  ready  to 
speak  and  act  through  the  bishops.  The  non-Episcopal  Churches 
have  no  other  executives  than  temporary  moderators,  presi- 
dents, and  clerks  who  are  unable  to  go  beyond  their  instructions, 
and  are  not  competent  to  act  in  the  emergencies  that  may  arise 
in  the  Church  or  the  State,  or  in  the  complicated  questions  of 
education  and  social  life.  Banks  and  railroads,  trusts  and  com- 
mercial companies,  cannot  get  on  without  presidents.  Academies 
have  their  principals,  colleges  and  universities  their  presidents 
and  chancellors.  The  city  has  its  mayor,  the  State  its  governor, 
the  United  States  their  president.  There  can  be  no  efficiency 
in  commercial,  social,  educational,  and  civil  life  without  the 
executive  head.  The  Church  never  can  be  efficient  without 
such  executives  in  the  several  grades  of  the  territorial  organiza- 
tion. The  inefficiency  of  Protestants  is  largely  due  to  the 
neglect  of  the  executive  function  of  the  Historic  Episcopate. 

Owing  to  the  irresistible  influence  of  the  civil  government 
upon  the  ecclesiastical  government,  the  denominations  have 
been  gradually  assimilated.  Let  any  one  compare  the  Con- 
gregationalists  of  New  England  with  the  Congregationalists  of 
Old  England,  and  he  will  see  that  the  former  have  adwanced 
very  far  in  the  direction  of  Presbyterianism,  in  the  authority 
given  to  councils  to  license  and  to  ordain  ministers,  to  fellow- 
ship or  disfellowship  Churches,  and  to  legislate  as  to  the  com- 
mon affairs  of  the  denomination.     It   is  true  there  is  the  old 


46  The  Church  Review. 

hostility  to  any  claim  of  authority,  but  the  authority  is  all  the 
stronger  that  it  is  given  in  the  form  of  counsel  and  fraternal 
advice.  • 

The  American  Presbyterian  Church  has  departed  widely  from 
the  Westminster  model  in  the  constitution  of  the  Presbytery, 
in  the  theory  of  the  ruling  eldership  and  in  methods  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline.  The  theory  that  the  ruling  elders  repre- 
sent the  people  is  an  American  Presbyterian  doctrine  that  has 
been  adopted  from  the  representative  theory  of  the  American 
Republic.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  very  different 
from  the  Church  of  England  in  its  government.  Its  two  houses, 
its  conventions,  Diocesan  and  General,  and  their  methods  of 
government  are  more  like  those  of  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church  than  those  of  the  Church  of  England. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  this  interesting  situation,  that  the 
free  Churches  of  the  United  States  under  the  potent  influences 
of  the  civil  government,  all  the  more  powerful  that  it  has  been 
indirect  and  insensible,  have  assimilated  themselves  so  far  to 
the  civil  government  and  thereby  also  to  each  other,  that  in 
their  ecclesiastical  government  they  are  at  present  not  far  apart, 
and  that  any  one  of  the  three  types  is  nearer  to  the  golden 
mean  of  parties  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Why,  then,  should 
they  any  longer  remain  apart?  It  is  my  opmion  that  the  pro- 
cess of  assimilation  is  so  rapid,  and  the  constraint  of  external 
necessity  is  so  great  that  it  is  inevitable  that  they  will  unite  early 
in  the  twentieth  century,  in  spite  of  all  traditions  and  of  every 
opposition  of  dogmaticians  and  ecclesiastics.  When  they  unite, 
it  is  inevitable  that  the  unity  of  the  organism  will  find  expres- 
sion in  the  executive  functions  of  the  Historic  Episcopate. 

II.   TJie  Historic  Episcopate  as  a  Term  of  Uition. 

The  Historic  Episcopate  is  made  the  great  question  of  dififi- 
culty  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  proposition  of  the  House  of 
Bishops  and   the   Lambeth   Conference. 

But  it  is  really  a  no  more  difificult  question  than  the  Historic 
Presbyter.  I  apprehend  that  before  the  reunion  is  accomplished 
each  one  of  these  offices  must  pass  through  the  fire.  I  am  not 
sure  that  it  makes  any  very  great  difference  where  we  begin. 
Possibly  it  may  be  as  well  that  the  Episcopal  Churches  should 
settle  the    question    of  the   Historic  Episcopate,  and  that  the 


Christian  Rninioii.  47 

Presbyterian  Churches   should    determine    the   question    of  the 
Historic  Presbyter. 

But  it  is  just  here  that  one  of  the  most  interesting  features  of 
the  situation  meets  us.  The  Episcopal  Churches  are  no  more 
agreed  as  to  the  Historic  Episcopate  than  are  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  as  to  the  Historic  Presbyterate.  The  Greek  Church 
will  not  agree  with  the  Roman;  neither  of  these  will  agree  J  ^ 
with  the  Anglican.  Let  any  one  consider  the  differences  in! 
the  Church  of  England  as  represented  by  the  three  names, 
Hatch,  Lightfoot,  and  Gore. 

In  view  of  this  discord  as  to  the  Historic  Episcopate,  well 
known  to  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference, 
it  seems  quite  evident  that  these  bishops,  differing  among  them- 
selves in  their  theory  of  the  Episcopate,  could  not  lay  down  a  ^ 
basis  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  that  would  involve  any 
particular  theory  of  the  Episcopate.  They  could  only  mean 
that  which  was  essential  to  the  Historic  Episcopate,  that  to 
which  divines  like  Hatch,  Lightfoot,  and  Gore_ could  agree. 

Many  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  have  the  feeling 
that  it  is  the  Anglo-Catholic  theory  of  the  Episcopate  that  the 
House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference  are  proposing. 
This  is  favored  by  the  industry  and  boldness  with  which  the 
Anglo-Catholic  party  are  pressing  their  theory.  But  it  seems 
incredible  that  the  House  of  Bishops  would  propose  a  theory 
to  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  rally  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  the  Church  of  England.  It  was  probably  well  known  to 
them  that  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Congregationalists,  and 
Lutherans  could  not  accept  the  Anglo-Catholic  theory.  But 
there  are  multitudes  of  ministers  in  all  the  non-Episcopal 
Churches  who  are  willing  to  accept  the  theory  of  the  Episco- 
pate of  the  late  Dr.  Hatch,  and  there  are  many  who  could 
adopt  the  theory  of  the  late  Bishop  Lightfoot. 

The  progress  of  the  discussion  as  to  the  Historic  Episcopate 
teaches  two  lessons:  (i)  The  Anglo-Catholics  who  really  de- 
sire the  reunion  of  Christendom  should  beware  lest  they  make 
their  theory  of  the  Episcopate  essential.  They  are  entitled  to 
argue  for  it  to  the  extent  of  their  ability;  but  they  should 
understand  that  if  they  make  their  theory  essential  there  is  no 
possibility  of  reunion.  They  "must  first  conquer  other  parties 
in  the  Episcopal  Churches  before  they  can  have  any  prospects 
of  overcoming  the  hosts  in  the  non-Episcopal  Churches,  who, 


y 


48  The  Church  Revieiv. 

so   far   as   my  observation  goes,   are  unanimous  against  them. 
(2)    On   the    other    hand,   those   who    hold    that   the    Historic 
I  Episcopate    is  jure   himiano    and    not  jwe   divifio,  that  it  has 
I  historic  right,  but  no  Bibh'cal  basis,  should  not  make  their  views 
■  essential.     The  Anglo-Catholic  theory  has  been  in  the  Church 
of  England   from   the  beginning,  and   it  would  be  an  historical 
wrong  to  exclude  it.     I  think  that  theory  can  be  shown  to  be 
erroneous.     Recent  historical  research  is  very  damaging  to  all 
jure  divino  theories  of  Church  government,  but  it  is  a  tolerable 
error,  and  it  should   be   recognized  by  all  as  a  legitimate   and  a 
lawful  theory  of  the  Episcopate.     These  theories  ought  to  co- 
exist, and  be  mutually  tolerant  and  forbearing.     The   question 
is  to  be  determined  by  historic  research,  and  not  by  dogmatic 
statements  or  ecclesiastical  decisions. 

The  view  that  I  have  taken  of  the  meaning  of  the  Historic 
Episcopate  as  proposed  by  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lam- 
beth Conference  as  the  fourth  term  of  union  is  confirmed  by  one 
who  seems  to  speak  with  authority.  Dr.  Vincent,  the  Assistant 
Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio,  tells  us  plainly:-^ 

Nothing  is  said  here  of  Episcopacy  as  of  Divine  institution  or  neces- 
sity, nothing  of  '  Apostolic  succession,'  nothing  of  a  Scriptural  origin  or 
a  doctrinal  nature  in  the  institution.  It  is  expressly  proposed  here  only 
in  its  '  historical  character '  and  as  '  locally  adapted  to  the  varying  needs 
of  God's  people.'  All  else,  unless  it  be  its  Scripturalness,  is  matter  of 
opinion,  to  which  this  Church  has  never  formally  committed  herself. 
Her  position  here  is  the  same  broad  and  generous  one  taken  in  the 
preface  to  her  Ordinal.  That  phrase,  '  the  Historic  Episcopate,'  was 
deliberately  chosen  as  declaring  not  a  doctrine,  but  a  fact,  and  as  .being 
general  enough  to  include  all  variants.  —  [An  Address  on  Christian 
Unity,  p.  29.  Published  by  the  Cincinnati  branch  of  the  Church  Unity 
Society.] 

This  platform,  thus  interpreted,  is  broad  enough  and  strong 
enough  for  the  feet  of  Presbyterians,  and  it  contains  nothing  to 
which  they  can  rightly  object. 

I      The  non-Episcopal  Churches  are  willing  to  consider  the  His- 

I  toric  Episcopate  as  jure  Jiumano,  as  not  essential  to  the  exis- 

' tence  of  the  Church,  but  as  important  for  its  well-being.     On 

that  ground  we  can  stand.      Not  a  few  Presbyterians  agree  with 

me  that  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government,  as  now  used  in 

the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  defective.      It  is  impossible  for  a 


Christian  Reunion.  ^g 

whole  Presbytery  to  exercise  I':piscopal  functions  in  any  prac- 
tical way.  A  committee  of  Presbytery  is  more  efficient;  but  it 
has  been  the  experience  of  committees  that  really  the  best  com- 
mittee is  a  committee  of  o;ie,  and  practically  in  all  committees 
the  chairman  or  secretary  does  the  major  part  of  the  work. 
The  Presbytery  needs  an  executive  head  who  shall  be  relieved 
from  the  cares  of  a  local  Church  and  be  consecrated  to  the 
superintendency  of  the  whole  Church  in  the  limits  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. Many  Presbyterians  feel  the  inefficiency  of  the  Presby- 
tery very  keenly,  and  are  prepared  to  advance  to  the  permanent 
moderator  or  superintendent.  Why  not  call  him  bishop?  The 
tendency  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  toward  such  a  bishop, 
who  will  give  the  Presbytery  an  executive  head  and  make  it 
more  efficient.  The  Episcopate  has  in  its  favor  the  historical 
usage  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  second  century  until 
the  sixteenth.  The  Episcopate  has  in  its  favor  also  its  con- 
tinuance in  several  national  Reformed  Churches,  showing  that 
it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Reformation.  History  is  a  power- 
ful argument  for  the  Episcopate.  This,  added  to  the  practical 
argument,  makes  the  future  of  the  Episcopate  sure  unless  the 
old  blunders  should  be  renewed  and  perpetuated. 

III.      Grounds  of  Opposition  to  Episcopacy. 
There  are  four  reasons  for  opposition  in  the  non-Episcopal 
Churches  to  the  Historic  Episcopate :  — 

1.  The  claim  that  the  Diocesan  Episcopacy  has  the  Divine 
right  of  institution  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles. 

2.  The  claim  that  the  Diocesan  bishops  are  the  successors  of 
the  Apostles. 

3.  The  claim  that  ordination  by  Diocesan  bishops  has  in  it 
special  grace  without  which  there  can  be  no  valid  ministry. 

4.  The  claim  that  Diocesan  bishops  have  Divine  authority  to 
rule  the  Church. 

These  claims  for  the  Diocesan  Episcopate  have  been  asso- 
ciated in  the  minds  of  the  non-Episcopal  ministry  with  all  the 
tyranny  and  abuses  that  the  Church  has  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  Diocesan  bishops.  These  claims  are  not  recognized  by  the 
ministry  of  other  Protestant  Churches,  and  it  is  not  at  all  likely 
that  they  ever  will  be  recognized.  Unless  the  Historic  Epis- 
copacy can  be  eliminated  from  them,  the  reunion  of  Christen- 
dom is  improbable. 


1^ 


50  The  Clmroh  Review. 

1.  There  is  agreement  among  recent  historical  critics  of  all 
parties  that  there  is  no  record  of  the  institution  of  the  Diocesan 
bishop  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only  bishops  of  the  New 
Testament  are  presbyter-bishops,  and  these  are  ever  associated 
in  a  college  or  Presbytery.  Nowhere  do  we  find  a  Church 
under  the  guidance  of  one  of  these  presbyter-bishops.  No- 
where do  we  find  more  than  one  Church  in  one  city.  Hatch, 
Lightfoot,  Gore,  Sanday,  Harnack,  and  Schaff  are  agreed  as  to 
this  point.  Hence  the  battle-cries  of  all  the  parties  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  have  happily  disappeared  in  this  new  concord 
of  historical  criticism.  There  is  no  ecclesiastical  organization 
now  in  existence  that  corresponds  with  the  organization  of  the 
Church  in  the  New  Testament.  Where  do  we  find  the  inde- 
pendent Church  with  a  single  pastor  and  a  bench  of  deacons 
of  modern  Congregationalism?  Where  do  we  find  the  ruling 
elders  with  a  presiding  parochial  bishop  of  modern  Presby- 
terianism?  Where  do  we  find  the  Diocesan  bishop  with  his  sub- 
ordinate priests  and  deacons  of  the  Episcopal  Churches?  None 
of  these  are  in  the  New  Testament.  All  jure  divino  theories  of 
Church  government  that  base  their  orders  on  the  authority  of 
the  New  Testament  are,  if  not  yet  buried,  inanimate  corpses, 
slain  by  historical  criticism.  Jure  divino  Congregationalism 
and  Presbyterianism  have  but  few  advocates  at  the  present 
time.  It  is  probable  that  it  is  the  failure  of  the  jure  divino 
theory  of  the  Diocesan  Episcopate  that  has  a  great  deal  to 
do  with  the  advance  of  the  Church  of  England  and  her 
daughters  toward  Church  unity. 

2.  The  claim  that  bishops  are  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles is  no  longer  defended  on  the  ground  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  but  on  the  ground  of  the  history  of  the  second  Christian 
century.  Early  in  the  second  century  bishops  appear  at  the  head 
of  colleges  of  presbyters  in  the  leading  Churches  of  Asia;  but 
it  is  admitted  that  these  do  not  appear  so  early  in  the  Churches 
of  Europe  and  Africa,  where  the  Churches  were  governed  by 
colleges  of  presbyter-bishops.  It  is  admitted  that  these  bishops 
of  the  cities  of  Asia  are  not  yet  full  Diocesan  bishops;  they  are 
parochial  bishops,  bishops  of  cities  and  towns  where  but  one 
Church  exists  so  far  as  can  be  determined.  These  parochial 
bishops  are  more  like  the  pastors  of  Presbyterian  and  Congre- 
gational Churches  than  Diocesan  bishops,  save  that  they  are  at 
the  head   of  colleges   of  presbyter-bishops,  to  which  modern 


Christian  Reunion.  c  i 

Congrcc^ationalism  has  nothini^  to  correspond  except  ruling  dea- 
cons, and  Prcsbytcrianisni  has  no  sufficient  substitute  in  ruhng 
elders.  Such  deacons  and  such  elders  have  no  C(ninterpart  in 
the  second  Christian  century;  and  the  breaking  up  of  the 
Church  of  ClIRIS  r  into  a  number  of  different  organizations  in 
the  same  city,  even  if  these  be  in  the  same  general  ecclesiasti- 
cal organization,  was  not  dreamed  of  in  the  second  century. 

It  is  a  plausible  theory  that  the  parochial  bishops  of  Asia 
were  ordained  and  installed  either  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles 
or  by  those  prophets,  teachers,  and  evangelists  who  had  Divine 
inspiration,  and  who  appear  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  as- 
sistants and  deputies  of  the  Apostles  in  the  organization  of  the 
Church.^  It  is  also  a  legitimate  theory  that  these  parochial 
bishops  were  the  historical  successors  of  these  assistants  and  dep- 
uties of  the  Apostles  who  were  at  first  travelling  apostles  and 
evangelists,  but  who  gradually  became  settled  and  permanent 
parochial  bishops  of  the  larger  and  more  central  Churches.^ 
But  giving  all  the  importance  to  these  theories  to  which  they 
may  be  entitled,  by  pushing  the  evidence  to  the  utmost  extreme, 
we  do  not  get  any  more  than  probable  historical  evidence  for 
the  parochial  bishops  as  historical  successors  of  the  Apostles. 

1  Though  the  New  Testament  itself  contains  as  yet  no  direct  and  indisputable 
notices  of  a  localized  Episcopate  in  the  Gentile  Churches,  as  distinguished  from  the 
movable  Episcopate  exercised  by  Timothy  in  Ephesus  and  by  Titus  in  Crete,  yet 
there  is  satisfactory  evidence  of  its  development  in  the  later  years  of  the  Apostolic 
age  ;  that  this  development  was  not  simultaneous  and  equal  in  all  parts  of  Chris- 
tendom ;  that  it  is  more  especially  connected  with  the  name  of  S.  John  ;  and  that 
in  the  early  years  of  the  second  century  the  Episcopate  was  widely  spread  and  had 
taken  firm  root,  more  especially  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  Syria.  —  Lightfoot,  Epistles 
of  S.  Ignatius,  vol   i.,  p.  y]6. 

2  "  We  have  no  determining  evidence  (in  the  New  Testament)  as  to  the  exact 
form  which  the  ministry  of  the  future  was  to  take.  .  .  .  Were  the  local  bishops  to 
receive  additional  powers,  such  as  would  make  them  independent  of  any  higher 
order .?  Or  were  the  Apostles  and  Apostolic  men,  like  Timothy  and  Titus',  to  per- 
petuate their  distinct  order  .?  And  if  so,  was  it  to  be  perpetuated  as  a  localized  or 
as  a  general  order  .?  These  questions  are  still  open  "  [Gore,  Ministrv  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  ])p.  269,  270] .  "  In  the  West  no  more  than  in  the  East  did  the  supreme 
power  ever  devolve  upon  the  presbyters.  There  was  a  time  when  they  were  (as  the 
epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp  bear  witness)  the  chief  local  authorities,  —  the  sole 
ordinary  occupants  of  the  chief  seat.  But  over  them,  not  yet  localized,  were  men 
either  of  prophetic  inspiration  or  of  Apostolic  authority  and  known  character  — 
'  prophets  '  or  '  teachers  '  or  '  rulers  '  or  '  men  of  distinction  '  —  who  in  the  sub-Apos- 
tolic age  ordained  to  the  sacred  ministrv,  and  in  certain  cases  would  have  exercised 
the  chief  teaching  and  governing  authority.  Gradually  these  men.  after  the  pattern 
set  by  James  in  Jerusalem  or  by  John  in  the  Churches  of  Asia,  became  themselves 
local  presidents  or  instituted  others  in  their  place  "  [/.  <r.,  p.  335]. 


52 


The  Church  Review. 


We  are  not  on  the  ground  of  the  Divine  right  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. We  have  nothing  more  than  very  ancient  historic  right 
for  the  Historic  Episcopate,  but  no  Divine  right.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  theory  that  the  parochial  bishop  was  a  natural  evolu- 
tion of  the  college  of  presbyter-bishops ;  that  it  was  inevitable 
that  the  college  should  have  an  executive  head ;  and  that  with 
the  growth  of  the  Church,  this  presiding  presbyter-bishop,  who 
at  first  was  temporary  and  changeable,  or  in  the  order  of  seniority 
would  become  a  permanent  parochial  bishop,  having  the  admin- 
istration of  the  affairs  of  the  Church  of  the  city  committed  to 
his  hands,  without  any  ordering  of  the  Apostles  and  without  any 
Divine  institution,  —  this  theory  accounts  for  all  the  facts  of 
history  as  they  appear  in  the  ancient  documents.^ 

The  modern  Church  cannot  safely  commit  itself  to  any  of 
these  theories,  for  it  is  within  the  range  of  possibility  that  ere 
long  other  early  Christian  documents  may  be  discovered,  of 
more  importance  than  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  that 
will  put  the  whole  question  in  a  new  light.  We  cannot  agree  to 
any  more  than  that  the  parochial  bishop  at  the  head  of  a  Pres- 
bytery of  presbyter-bishops  was  a  historic  fact  of  the  first  half 
of  the  second  Christian  century,  and  that  it  became  universal  at 
the  close  of  the  century.  Whether  it  rests  upon  Apostolic  au- 
thority, or  the  authority  of  the  presbyter-bishops  into  whose 
hands  the  government  of  the  Church  was  intrusted  by  the  Apos- 
tles, it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  determine.  The  New  Testa- 
ment gives  us  no  jitre  divino  on  the  subject.  If  it  were  an 
essential  question,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  there  would  have 
been  2.  jure  divino  determination  of  it.  We  may  agree  upon  the 
historic  fact;  we  cannot  agree  upon  the  Divine  institution. 

The  Apostles  had  a  unique  office,  —  to  bear  witness  to  what 
they  had  seen  of  the  historic  CHRIST,  His  life,  His  teachings.  His 

1  We  do  not  underrate  the  historical  argument  even  when  it  comes  so  close  to 
the  Apostles  themselves  and  the  prophets  who  were  associated  with  them.  But  we 
claim  that  it  is  necessary  to  carefully  distinguish  it  from  the  Divine  right  of  the 
New  Testament.  In  the  consideration  of  this  difference  I  have  been  greatly  im- 
pressed by  the  inconsistency  in  which  many  modern  Presbyterians  have  become 
involved.  The  old  Presbvterians  were  entirely  consistent  when  they  demanded  a» 
Divine  right  from  the  New  Testament  itself  for  the  ministry  and  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture. But  modern  Presbyterians  who  have  abandoned  the  argument  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  HoT.Y  Spirit  for  the  canonicity  of  Scripture,  and  rest  the  authority  of 
the  canon  of  Scripture  upon  the  historical  evidence  connecting  it  with  Apostolic 
penmen,  can  no  longer  with  consistency  demand  a  jure  divuio  for  Episcopacy,  and 
refuse  the  candid  and  firm  historical  argument  of  Bishop  Lightfoot. 


Chrislian  Reunion.  53 

death  on  the  cross,  His  resurrection,  His  ascension,  and  the  Chris- 
tophanies  of  the  enthroned  SAVIOUR.  No  successors  could  fulfil 
this  office.  The  other  parts  of  their  office,  teaching,  ^rovernin^, 
and  administration  of  the  sacraments,  they  transmitted  to  others. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  presbyter-bishops  are  seen  doin^  all 
these  things.  They  could  transmit  these  thin^L,^s  to  their  suc- 
cessors without  any  need  of  a  hicj^her  order,  superintending 
them  and  governing  them.  It  seems  to  many  historical  critics 
that  this  very  thing  they  did.  If  others  find  comfort  in  a  theory 
that  the  Apostles  or  Apostolic  men  had  a  hand  in  instituting  the 
parochial  bishops,  we  have  no  objection  to  the  theory,  if  held 
as  a  theory  and  not  urged  as  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church.  But  the  second  century  gives  us  only  the  parochial 
bishop.  The  Diocesan  bishop  and  the  village  bishop  were 
later  developments.  Certainly  these  had  no  institution  from 
the  hands  of  the  Apostles  or  Apostolic  men.  We  may  accept 
the  Diocesan  bishop  as  a  historic  evolution  in  the  growth  of  the 
Church  under  the  guidance  of  the  DiVlNE  SPIRIT,  but  we  cannot 
accept  the  Diocesan  bishop  as  linked  by  Apostolic  succession 
as  a  distinct  order  to  the  ordaining  hands  of  the  Apostles.  The 
ordination  of  presbyter-bishops  may  be  linked  to  Apostolic 
hands  by  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament.  The  ordination 
of  the  parochial  bishop  may  be  linked  to  the  Apostles'  hands 
by  a  plausible  interpretation  of  historical  facts.  But  the  Dio- 
cesan bishop  is  an  evolution  out  of  the  parochial  bishop,  and 
the  only  Apostolic  succession  he  has  is  through  the  parochial 
bishop,  or  possibly  only  through  the  presbyter-bishops. 

3.  The  claim  that  ordination  by  Diocesan  bishops  has  special 
grace,  without  which  there  is  no  valid  ministry,  is  the  most  ob- 
jectionable of  all  the  claims  that  are  put  forth  on  behalf  of  the. 
Historic  Episcopate  at  the  present  time.  We  hold  that  there 
is  no  evidence  for  this  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  second 
Christian  century.  The  New  Testament  tells  us  of  ordina|:ion 
by  a  Presbytery  of  presbyter-bishops,  but  gives  us  no  example 
of  ordination  by  a  parochial  bishop,  still  less  of  ordination  by  a 
Diocesan  bishop.  The  Presbyterian  Churches  claim  that  their 
ordination  by  presbyter-bishops  is  in  accordance  with  the  ex- 
ample of  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  Apostolic  succession 
has  been  regularly  transmitted  through  the  centuries  in  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  of  these  presbyter-bishops.  At  the  Reforma- 
tion some   of  the  National  Churches  of  northern  Europe  laid 


54 


The  Church  Review. 


aside  the  Diocesan  bishops,  and  by  the  highest  authority  in 
those  Churches  gave  the  entire  authority  of  the  ministry  to  the 
presbyter-bishops'  meeting  in  Presbytery. 

Presbyterian  ministers  have  been  ordained  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands  of  presbyter-bishops,  in  regular  succession  from  pres- 
byter-bishops ordained  by  Diocesan  bishops  at  the  head  of 
bodies  of  presbyter-bishops. 

Gore  admits  "that  the  Church  principle  of  succession  would 
never  be  violated  by  the  existence  in  any  Church  of  Episcopal 
powers,  whether  free  or  conditional,  in  all  the  presbyters,  sup- 
posing that  those  powers  were  not  assumed  by  the  individual 
for  himself,  but  were  understood  to  be  conveyed  to  him  by  the 
ordination  of  the  Church."^  Now  this  is  precisely  the  case  with 
the  Reformed  National  Churches  of  Europe.  The  Churches  of. 
Switzerland,  Germany,  and  Scotland  were  reformed  in  doctrine 
and  discipline  by  the  same  authority  as  the  Church  of  England; 
namely,  the  authority  lodged  in  the  National  Church  itself.  It 
is  quite  evident  that  the  National  Church  was  less  free  to  reform 
itself  and  more  hindered  in  its  development  in  England  than 
in  any  other  Protestant  country.  The  Diocesan  bishops  were 
deposed  for  tyranny,  immorality,  and  heresy  in  many  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  in  an  orderly  way.  In  those  countries 
where  Diocesan  bishops  led  or  followed  the  National  Churches 
in  their  reform,  they  were  retained.  But  where  they  were  de- 
posed, and  discontinued  in  the  interests  of  the  good  order  and 
discipline  of  the  Church,  the  whole  authority  of  the  Church  was 
given  over  into  the  hands  of  the  presbyter-bishops.  Did  these 
National  Churches  die  with  their  deposed  Diocesan  bishops? 
Was  there  no  inherent  authority  in  the  Church  to  govern  itself 
when  its  historic  bishops  had  left  it  in  the  lurch?  Even  grant- 
ing that  in  the  interests  of  good  order  ordination  by  a  Diocesan 
bishop  at  the  head  of  a  Presbytery  is  necessary  to  a  valid  minis- 
try, yet  the  disorders  of  the  Reformation,  and  the  separation  of 
the  bishops  from  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation,  left  the 
National  Churches  in  such  an  abnormal  condition  that  the  only 
ordained  ministry  left  to  them  were  obliged  to  exercise  all  the 
functions  of  the  ministry.  Their  acts,  even  if  irregular  and  dis- 
orderly, were  therefore  valid,  because  they  were  not  the  usurped 
authority  of  individuals ;  they  were  the  authority  of  organized 
National  Churches,  in  accordance  with  national  law  and  order. 

1  Mhiistry  of  the  Christian  Church,  1889,  p.  143. 


Christian  Rciinioii.  1^5 

Principal  Gore  says,  "  It  cannot  be  maintained  that  the  acts  of 
ordination  by  whicli  presbyters  of  the  sixteenth  or  subsequent 
centuries  originated  the  ministries  of  some  of  these  societies, 
were  covered  by  their  commissions  or  belon<^ed  to  the  office  of 
Presbyter,  which  they  had  received."^  But  this  is  precisely  what 
has  been  maintained  in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches 
from  the  beginning.     The  Westminster  Directory  teaches, — 

( I )  No  man  ought  to  take  upon  him  the  office  of  a  minister  of  the 
Word  without  a  lawful  calling  [John  iii.  27  ;  Rom.  x.  14,  15  ;  Jer.  xiv. 
14;  Heb.  ix.  4];  (2)  Ordination  is  always  to  be  continued  in  the 
Church  ['lit.  i.  5  ;  i  Tim.  v.  21,  22]  ;  (3)  Ordination  is  the  solemn 
setting  apart  of  a  person  to  some  publique  Church  office  [Num.  viii. 
10,  II,  14,  19,  22;  Acts  vi.  3,  5,  6J  ;  (4)  Every  minister  of  the 
Word  is  to  be  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands,  and  prayer  with  fasting, 
by  those  preaching  presbyters  to  whom  it  doth  belong  [i  Tim.  v.  22  ; 
Acts  xiii.  3;  xiv.  23]  ;  (5)  The  power  of  ordering  the  whole  work  of 
ordination  is  in  the  whole  Presbytery   [i  Tim.  iv.  14]. 

It  is  not  presbyters  gathered  in  societies  who  ordain,  but 
presbyters  organized  in  a  Presbytery  for  the  government  and 
discipline  of  the  Church.  These  presbyters  claim  Apostolic 
succession  through  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  presbyters  in  suc- 
cessive generations,  leading  back  to  the  Apostles  in  the  New 
Testament  times.  These  Presbyteries  claim  succession  to  the 
Presbyteries  that  have  governed  the  Church  in  all  ages  under 
various  names.  Their  authority  was  not  destroyed  when  the 
presiding  bishops  were  lawfully  deposed  and  the  office  of  Dio- 
cesan bishops  was  for  good  reasons  discontinued.  The  whole 
authority  of  ordination  fell  to  the  whole  Presbytery  or  whole 
body  of  presbyters  organized  as  National  Churches. 

Principal  Gore  also  says,  "  Beyond  all  question  they  *  took  to 
themselves '  these  powers  of  ordination,  and  consequently  had 
them  not."^  But  Presbyterians  claim,  on  the  contrary,  that  they 
did  have  these  powers  of  ordination  by  right  of  succession  and 
that  they  did  not  take  them  to  themselves,  and  that  they  con- 
sequently had  them.  They  not  only  had  them  by  transmission 
in  ordination  by  presbyters  and  Diocesan  bishops,  but  they 
had  them  by  becoming,  through  the  deposition  of  the  Diocesan 
bishops,  and  the  commission  into  their  hands  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  National  Church,  and  by  the  consent  of  the 
National    Parliament,  the  seat  of  the   whole    authority   in    the 

1  Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  1889,  p.  344.  2  Ibid.,  p.  345. 


56  The  Church  Review* 

National  Church.  There  was  no  more  taking  to  themselves 
powers  of  ordination  by  Scotch,  Swiss,  Danish,  Dutch,  and  Ger- 
man presbyters  in  these  National  Churches  of  Northern  Europe 
than  there  was  in  the  case  of  the  Protestant  bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England  who  were  deposed  by  the  Roman  Church, 
and  whose  authority  to  ordain  has  never  since  been  recognized 
by  the  Roman  Church.  Did  the  deposed  Diocesan  bishops  re- 
tain in  their  hands  the  sole  authority  to  ordain  in  the  National 
Church,  and  were  the  whole  body  of  presbyters  and  the  people 
and  Parliament  doing  unlawful  acts  in  vindicating  the  purity  of 
the  Church,  its  orthodoxy,  and  the  Divine  rights  of  Jesus  Christ? 
God  forbid  !  The  accident  or  good  providence  that  enabled  the 
Church  of  England  to  advance  into  the  Reformation  with  her 
bishops  at  her  head,  does  not  entitle  that  Church  to  lord  it  over 
other  National  Churches,  or  to  claim  the  only  valid  ministry  in 
Protestantism.  The  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches  of  the 
continent  of  Europe  and  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
Churches  of  Great  Britain  and  America,  challenge  comparison 
with  the  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters  at  this  point, 
and  at  any  other  point.  The  ministry  of  those  Churches  who 
honor  the  names  of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  Zwingli  and  Cal- 
vin, Knox  and  Alasco,  and  a  host  more  of  the  greatest  men  of 
modern  times,  will  never  dishonor  the  memory  of  these  heroes 
of  the  Faith  by  denying  the  validity  of  their  ministry.  The  re- 
union of  Christendom  at  such  a  cost  would  be  a  dishonorable 
transaction.  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  will  continue 
to  honor  the  memories  of  Cartwright  and  Travers  in  their  con- 
test with  Whitgift  and  Hooker;  of  Marshall,  Palmer,  and  Baxter 
in  their  contest  with  Laud,  Hall,  and  Taylor;  of  Robinson  and 
his  band  of  Separatists  who  founded  the  Plymouth  Colony;  of 
the  patriarch  White  of  Dorchester  and  his  associates,  who 
founded  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony;  of  Melville,  Welch, 
Livingston,  and  Rutherford,  and  a  host  of  brave  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists,  who  battled  against  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical tyranny  of  bishops  and  king.  Such  names  as  Cartwright, 
Melville,  Baxter,  and  Bunyan  shine  among  the  heroes  of  the 
Faith.  Such  lordly  and  tyrannous  prelates  as  Whitgift  and 
Laud  no  modern  Church  would  tolerate  for  a  moment.  The 
English  people  of  our  day  would  hurl  such  bishops  from  their 
thrones  with  thunderbolts  of  wrath.  Such  prelacy  is  not  the 
Historic  Episcopate. 


Christian  Rcimion,  57 

It  should  be  definitely  understood  that  the  ministry  of  the 
non-Episcopal  Churches  will  not  in  any  considerable  numbers 
dishonor  the  Apostohc  succession  of  their  ministry  throu^j-h 
such  presbyter-bishops.  If  our  brethren  of  the  h^piscopal  min- 
istry think  there  is  any  special  grace  in  ordination  by  tlie  hands 
of  a  Diocesan  bishop,  and  offer  that  grace  to  us  without  exact- 
ing from  us  any  renunciation  of  the  ministry  we  have  received  as 
Presbyterians,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery, 
I  am  free  to  say  that  in  order  to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and 
in  order  to  the  historical  continuity  that  there  is  in  the  Diocesan 
Episcopate,  honored  through  the  centuries  of  Christian  history, 
I  would  accept  the  offer  of  Episcopal  ordination,  and  I  doubt 
not  that  many  ministers  would  follow  me  in  such  a  step.  But 
we  cannot  accept  the  doctrine  that  the  grace  of  Apostolic  suc- 
cession drops  only  from  the  bishop's  hands,  or  that  the  presby- ' 
ters  who  take  part  in  the  ceremony  of  ordination  are  merely 
attendants,  communicating  nothing  of  the  authority  of  the  min- 
istry from  their  share  in  the  ceremony  of  ordination. 

4.  The  claim  that  bishops  have  Divine  authority  to  rule  the  ^ 
Church  was  pressed  in  former  times.  But  unless  we  mistake, 
it  has  been  for  the  most  part  abandoned  in  Great  Britain  and 
America.  The  fight  against  Episcopal  usurpation  and  tyranny, 
has  been  fought  to  the  end ;  and  the  Church  of  England  and 
her  daughters  are  now  among  the  freest  and  most  tolerant 
Churches  in  Christendom.  There  is  much  more  of  tyranny 
in  modern  Presbyterianism,  and  even  in  modern  Congregation- 
alism, than  there  is  in  the  Historic  Episcopate,  as  it  is  now 
knowm  in  Great  Britain  and  America. 

None  of  these  four  claims  that  have  been  associated  with  His- 
toric Episcopacy  would  be  recognized  by  the  ministry  of  the 
non-Episcopal  Churches.  Many  of  us  are  willing  that  all  who 
desire  to  make  these  claims  may  do  so  for  their  own  comfort 
and  edification,  in  so  far  as  they  do  not  force  them  upon  us,  or 
endeavor  to  make  them  the  law  of  the  Church  of  CilRlST.  We 
do  not  follow  the  ancient  Puritans  in  rejecting  them  as  anti- 
Christian  errors.  We  do  not  agree  with  the  old  Presbyterians 
in  casting  out  jure  divino  Episcopacy  in  order  to  set  up  jure 
divino  Presbytery.  Cartwright  and  Travers  were  as  much  in 
error  on  the  one  side  as  Laud  and  Hall  on  the  other. 

W^e  have  to  consider  under  the  Historic  Episcopate  that 
which  is  essential  to  it  as  a  bond  of  union,  and   not  those  unes- 


58  The  Church  Review, 

sential  theories  and  claims  that  have  been  put  forth  by  certain 
parties  in  its  behalf.  These  are  but  the  outer  garments  of  the 
Historic  Episcopate,  that  may  be  exchanged  for  other  robes. 
These  are  the  features  that  may  be  pleasant  for  some  parties 
to  look  upon,  and  we  shall  not  deny  them  their  pleasure  in 
them.  But  when  the  proposition  of  the  House  of  Bishops 
is  adopted,  "the  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the 
methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  na- 
tions and  peoples  called  of  GOD  into  the  unity  of  the  Church,*' 
then,  if  we  mistake  not,  all  these  unessential  things  will  be  re- 
ferred to  the  special  charge  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  party  to 
nurse  them  and  care  for  their  future,  while  all  other  parties  will 
agree  with  the  Anglo-Catholics  in  rallying  round  the  Historic 
Episcopate  in  its  essential  features  as  seen  in  all  lands  and  in 
all  times,  taking  form  in  the  several  Dioceses  as  the  conditions 
and  circumstances  require. 

IV.   Advantages  of  the  Historic  Episcopate. 

Where,  then,  is  the  advantage  of  the  Historic  Episcopate? 
Where  is  the  substance  in  which  all  Episcopal  Churches  and 
parties  are  agreed,  and  to  which  it  is  probable  non-Episcopal 
Churches  will  adhere,  in  order  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom?. 

I.  The  Historic  Episcopate  was  a  Historical  Evolution  in 
CJmrcJi  Government.  Although  there  were  no  other  bishops 
in  New  Testament  times  than  presbyters,  yet  it  was  a  legiti- 
mate and  inevitable  result  of  a  bench  or  body  of  presbyters 
that  one  should  have  the  management  of  affairs,  be  the  execu- 
tive head,  and  preside  over  the  government  of  the  local  Church. 
The  presiding  bishop  therefore  sprang  up  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  first  century,  or  early  in  the  second  century.  At  first 
this  bishop  was  a  parochial  bishop.  There  was  but  one  Church 
organization  in  the  city,  with  missions  in  the  suburban  villages. 
The  unity  of  the  Church  maintained  itself  with  its  increase  in 
size,  so  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  or  early 
in  the  third  century,  the  parochial  Presbytery  had  grown  into 
a  Diocesan  Presbytery,  and  the  parochial  bishop  into  a  Dio- 
cesan bishop,  and  later  chorepiscopi,  or  pastors  of  village 
Churches,  came  into  the  field.  The  system  continued  to  de- 
velop in  history  until  the  archbishop  and  patriarch  and  pope, 
one  after  the  other,  gave  expression  to  the  higher  unities  of  the 


C/irislia7i  Rcniiioji.  59 

growing  Church  of  CllRlST.  The  Historic  ICpiscopatc  is  a  his- 
torical evolution.  It  has  a  vast  variety  of  form  in  history.  ^\t 
what  stage  in  the  development  shall  wc  take  it  as  a  basis  of 
union  ?  The  Roman  Church  presents  us  the  system  in  its 
highest  form  in  the  Pope.  The  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches 
give  us  an  earlier  stage  in  the  patriarch.  The  Church  of  I'^ng- 
land  presents  us  the  still  earlier  stage  in  the  archbislu^p.  The 
American  Episcopal  Church  does  not  rise  higher  than  the  Dio- 
cesan bishop.  The  Presbyterian  Church  goes  farther  back  to 
the  parochial  bishop.  What  Church  is  there  that  goes  back 
to  the  earlier  form  of  government  as  it  appears  in  the  New 
Testament,  with  a  bench  of  parochial  presbyter-bishops  under 
Apostolic  oversight  ?  Not  one.  They  all  have  made  the  mis- 
take of  pleading  a  jure  divino,  while  they  all  represent  a  later 
stage  q{  jure  huniaiio  development.  At  what  stage,  then,  shall 
we  take  our  stand  for  Church  unity  ?  What  is  the  essence 
of  the  Historic  Episcopate  in  which   all  can  agree? 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  solution  is  not  in  going  backward, 
but  jorzvard.  History  speaks  very  strongly  for  the  Historic 
Episcopate.  My  historic  sense  not  only  gives  me  great  respect 
and  veneration  for  the  office,  but  also  leads  me  to  the  opinion 
that  the  Church,  guided  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  did  not  err  in 
its  Episcopal  government  through  all  these  centuries.  The 
abandonment  of  the  Episcopate  was  not  a  natural  result  of  the 
Reformation.  It  was  not  a  part  of  the  Lutheran  movement. 
The  national  Lutheran  Churches  of  Denmark  and  Sweden  have 
retained  bishops  until  the  present  day. 

Sweden  claims  Apostolical  succession  for  her  bishops.  The 
Episcopal  office  was  restored  to  Denmark,  but  the  first  bishops 
were  ordained  by  Bugenhagen.^  Bishops  continued  at  the 
head  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Prussia  and  Brandenburg 
for  a  long  time.  England  began  with  bishops.  Scotland  had 
superintending  bishops.  It  was  the  jealousy  that  princes  in 
Germany  felt  of  the  Episcopal  prerogative  that  prevented  the 
Lutheran  Church  from  having  Diocesan  bishops.  However, 
superintendents  were  appointed  to  exercise  many  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  Episcopate  in  the  larger  portion  of  Germany  and 
Austria. 

It  was  the  tyranny  of  the  bishops,  and  their  close  alliance  with 
the  Crown,  that  forced  the  reforming  party  in  the  State  as  v/ell 

1  Briefwechsel  zwischen  H.  L.  Martensen  und  I.  A.  Dorticr,  Bd.  i.  s.  23S. 


6o  The  Church  Review. 

as  in  the  Church  to  take  ground  against  them.  The  King  was 
the  supreme  bishop  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  became  a 
national  pope. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  that 
at  all  interfered  with  the  Episcopal  office.  There  was  nothing 
in  Puritanism  that  forced  the  abolition  of  the  Episcopate. 
Some  of  the  ablest  archbishops  and  bishops  of  England  and 
Ireland  were  Puritans.  It  was  more  the  evolution  of  civil  poli- 
tics and  the  political  complications  of  the  bishops  that  miade 
the  difficulty  in  Great  Britain.  Whitgift  and  Laud  did  more  to 
injure  the  Episcopate  in  Protestantism  than  any  other  agencies 
whatever.  The  opposition  to  the  Episcopate  in  Presbyterian 
circles  is  a  traditional  opposition  that  goes  back  to  the  Laudian 
usurpation  and  the  civil  and  religious  wars  that  followed.  The 
Episcopate  oi  Abbot  and  Usshcr  Presbyterians  are  under  histori- 
cal bonds  to  accept. 

The  difficulty  is  not  to  be  solved  by  stopping  at  any  of  the 
stages  in  the  historical  evolution  of  the  Episcopate,  whether 
with  the  parochial  bishop,  the  Diocesan  bishop,  the  archbishop, 
the  patriarch,  or  the  pope.  The  whole  process  is  a  natural 
evolution  of  the  Historic  Episcopate.  As  I  have  recently 
said :  — 

Christendom  might  unite  with  an  ascending  series  of  superintending 
bishops  that  would  culminate  in  a  universal  bishop,  provided  the  pyra- 
mid would  be  willing  to  rest  firmly  on  its  base,  the  solid  order  of  the 
presbyter-bishops  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  all  history,  and  all 
Churches.  But  the  pyramid  will  never  stand  on  its  apex,  nor  hang 
suspended  in  the  air  supported  by  any  of  its  upper  stages  [  Whither  ? 
p.  238]. 

2.  TJie  Historic  Episcopate  is  the  Croivn  of  Presbyteria7t 
Government.  It  was  so  -historically;  it  is  so  practically. 
Therefore  Presbyterians  should  be  willing  to  accept  it  as  such. 
They  are  not  willing  to  accept  the  theory  of  the  tJirce  orders, 
but  many  are  willing  to  accept  the  bishop  as  the  executive 
head  of  the  one  order  of  ministers,  —  the  first  among  his  breth- 
ren, the  most  honored,  the  most  efficient,  of  them  all.  It  is  the 
theory  of  Apostolic  orders  that  makes  the  difficulty  in  the  His- 
toric Episcopacy.  We  can  agree  upon  orders  as  differences 
in  rank  as  jure  Jinmano,  for  the  well-being  of  the  Church,  so 
far  as  these  higher  orders  are  higher  by  election  of  their  breth- 


Christian  Reti)iio7t.  6i 

ren,  and  not  higher  by  descent  of  Apostolical  succession.  I 
could  a<^ree  to  bishop,  archbishop,  patriarch,  and  po[>e  if  these 
were  all  chosen  by  the  Church  in  staL;c  upon  sta;^^e  of  advance- 
ment toward  the  executive  head  of  the  Church.  Hut  I  Cfnild 
not  agree  that  the  bishops  had  any  exclusive  Divine  right  <jr 
historic  right  to  transmit  the  ICpiscopal  order,  any  more  than  that 
the  Pope  should  transmit  papal  authority.  The  bishops  should 
be  simply  the  executive  officers  of  the  Church  chosen  by  the 
Presbyteries.  I  am  willing,  in  other  words,  to  agree  to  the 
whole  system  of  Episcopal  orders  even  up  to  a  papal  head,  but 
am  not  willing  to  agree  to  theories  of  higher  orders,  which  are 
associate  with  prerogative,  pride,  ambition,  tyranny,  and  despot- 
ism. Presbyterians  might  be  willing  to  recognize  all  sorts  of 
theories  of  the  Episcopate  and  tolerate  all  kinds  of  human 
weakness  and  follies  in  bishops;  they  could  not  unite  on  any 
of  the  theories  of  the  Historic  Episcopate,  but  they  might 
unite  on  the  Historic  Episcopate  itself.  And  if  the  Anglo- 
Catholics  desire  to  conserve  their  theory  by  any  rites  and  cere- 
monies in  the  way  of  consecration  and  ordination  by  bishops, 
they  should  concede  to  others  the  Presbyterial  election.  Episco- 
pal responsibility  to  synods  or  conventions  in  which  presbyters 
shall  have  their  rights;  and  they  should  put  such  checks  upon 
Episcopal  authority  as  will  prevent  any  of  those  evils  from 
which  the   Church  suffered  so  much  in  the  past. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  just  here  two  historical  facts:  (i) 
What  the  Presbyterians  offered  in  1 66 r,  as  their  ultimatum;  and 
(2)  What  is  the  actual  condition  of  the  Historic  Episcopate 
in  America,  when  compared  with  this  ultimatum. 

The  Presbyterial  ultimatum  of  1661  was  given  in  the  Propo- 
sals of  the  Presbyterian  ministers,  drawn  up  after  nearly  three 
weeks'  debate,  in  Sion  College,  in  which  Edmund  Calamy,  Rey- 
nolds, Newcommen,  and  Baxter,  had  the  chief  hand. 

That  although  upon  just  reasons  we  do  dissent  from  that  ecclesiasti- 
cal Hierarchy  or  prelacy  disclaimed  in  the  Covenant,  as  it  was  stated 
and  exercised  in  these  kingdoms,  yet  we  do  not,  nor  ever  did  renounce 
the  true  ancient  and  primitive  presidency  as  it  was  ballanced  and 
managed  by  a  due  commixture  of  presbyters  therewith,  as  a  fit  means 
to  avoid  corruptions,  partiality,  tyranny,  and  other  evils  which  may  be 
incident  to  the  administration  of  one  single  person,  which  kind  of  at- 
tempered Presidency,  if  it  shall  be  your  Majesty's  grave  wisdom  and 


62  The  Church  Review, 

gracious  moderation,  be  in  such  manner  constituted  as  that  the  fore- 
mentioned  and  other  like  evils  may  be  certainly  prevented,  we  shall 
humbly  submit  thereunto. 

And  in  order  to  an  happy  accomodation  in  this  weighty  business,  we 
desire  humbly  to  offer  unto  your  majesty  some  of  the  particulars  which 
we  conceive  were  unwise  in  the  Episcopal  government,  as  it  was  prac- 
tised before  the  year  1640. 

1.  The  great  extent  of  the  Bishop's  Diocess,  which  was  much  too 
large  for  his  own  personal  inspection,  wherein  he  undertook  a  pastoral 
charge  over  the  souls  of  all  those  within  his  bishoprick,  which  must 
needs  be  granted  to  be  too  heavy  a  burthen  for  any  one  man's  shoulders, 
the  Pastoral  office  being  a  work  of  personal  ministration  and  trust,  and 
that  of  the  highest  concernment  to  the  souls  of  the  people,  for  which 
they  are  to  give  an  account  to  Christ. 

2 .  That  by  reason  of  this  disability  to  discharge  their  duty  and  trust 
personally,  the  bishops  did  depute  the  administration  of  much  of  their 
trust,  even  in  matters  of  spiritual  cognizance,  to  commissaries,  chancel- 
lors, and  officials,  whereof  some  were  secular  persons,  and  could  not 
administer  that  power  which  originally  appertaineth  to  the  pastors  of 
the  Church. 

3.  That  those  bishops  who  affirm  the  Episcopal  office  to  be  a  dis- 
tinct order. by  Divine  right  from  that  of  the  Presbyter,  did  assume  the 
sole  power  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction  to  themselves. 

4.  That  some  of  the  bishops  exercised  an  arbitrary  power  as  by 
sending  forth  the  Books  of  Articles  in  their  Visitations,  and  therein 
unwarrantably  enquiring  into  several  things,  and  swearing  the  church- 
wardens to  present  accordingly.  So  also  by  many  innovations  and 
ceremonies  imposed  upon  ministers  and  people  not  required  by  law, 
and  by  suspending  ministers  at  their  pleasure. 

In  reforming  of  which  evils,  we  humbly  crave  leave  to  offer  unto  your 
majesty,  — 

I.  The  late  most  reverend  primate  of  Ireland  his  Reduction  of 
Episcopacy  unto  the  Form  of  Synodical  Government,  received  in  the 
ancient  Church  :  as  a  ground  work  towards  an  accommodation  and 
fraternal  agreement  in  this  point  of  Ecclesiastical  government :  which 
we  rather  do,  not  only  in  regard  of  h^s  eminent  piety  and  singular 
Ability  as  in  all  other  parts  of  Learning  so  in  that  especially  of  the 
Antiquities  of  the  Church,  but  also  because  therein  expedients  are 
offered  for  healing  these  grievances. 

And  in  order  to  the  same  end,  we  further  humbly  desire  that  the 
suffragans  or  chorepiscopi,  mentioned  in  the  Primate's  Reduction,  may 
be  chosen  by  the  respective  Synods,  and  by  that  Election  be  sufficiently 


Chrislian  Rcicuion.  63 

authorized  to  discharge  their  Trust.  That  the  Associations  may  not  l)e 
so  large  as  to  make  the  DiscijiHuc  iuipossible,  or  to  take  off  the  minis- 
ters from  the  rest  of  their  necessary  imi^loyinents. 

That  no  oaths  or  promises  of  obedience  to  the  Bishops,  nor  any 
unnecessary  subscriptions  or  engagements  be  made  necessary  to  ordina- 
tion, institution,  induction,  ministration,  communion,  or  immunities  of 
ministers,  they  being  responsible  for  any  transgression  of  the  Law. 

And  that  no  Bishops  nor  any  ecclesiastical  governors  may  at  any 
time  exercise  their  government  by  their  own  private  will  or  pleasure, 
but  only  by  such  rules,  canons,  and  constitutions  as  shall  be  hereafter 
by  Act  of  Parliament  ratified  and  established  ;  and  that  sufficient  pro- 
vision be  made  to  secure  both  ministers  and  people  against  the  evils  of 
Arbitrary  Government  in  the  Church. 

These  Presbyterian  Proposals  were  rejected  by  the  bishops 
ill  1 66 1.  But  unless  we  mistake,  every  one  of  these  Presby- 
terian Proposals  has  been  complied  with  by  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  Baxter  said  in  1691, 
"  Oh,  how  little  would  it  have  cost  your  Churchmen  in  1660  and 
1661  to  have  prevented  the  calamitous  and  dangerous  divisions 
of  this  Land,  and  our  common  dangers  thereby  and  the  hurt 
that  many  hundred  thousand  souls  have  received  by  it?  And 
how  little  would  it  cost  them  yet  to  prcveiit  the  continiLanec  of  W 
\_Penitc}it  ConfessioUy  Preface'].  Then  I  thank  GoD  that  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  are  now  willing  to  pay  this  small  cost.  I  stand  by 
Baxter ;  and  I  shall  do  all  I  can  to  reduce  the  cost.  It  is  no 
time  for  Presbyterians  to  increase  their  demands.  We  should 
vie  with  our  Episcopal  brethren  in  generosity  and  self-sacrifice. 
I  believe  that  Presbyterians  will  rise  to  the  situation  so  soon  as 
they  understand  it.  I  believe  that  ere  long  Presbyterians  will 
accept  the  Proposals  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  thus  show 
that  they  have  the  same  spirit  of  accommodation  and  desire  for 
the  unity  of  CHRIST'S  Church  that  their  fathers  showed  in  the 
Proposals  of  1661.  We  are  thankful  that  after  more  than  two 
centuries  a  House  of  Bishops  has  accepted  all  that  our  fathers 
proposed. 

3.  Episcopal  ordination  and  Prcshytcrial  ordination  arc  not 
inconsistent,  but  complementary.  A  Presbyterian  minister  is  or- 
dained by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery  with 
a   moderator  at  their  head.     The   ordination  is  the  act  of  the 


64 


The  Church  Review. 


whole  body  organized  for  the  government  of  the  congregations 
and  presbyters  within  its  bounds.  The  Episcopal  minister  is 
ordained  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  bishop,  with 
two  or  more  attending  presbyters.  We  shall  place  the  direc- 
tory and  the  ordinal  side  by  side  for  comparison. 


Ordinal. 

The  bishop,  with  the  priests  pres- 
ent, shall  lay  their  hands  severally 
upon  the  head  of  every  one  that 
receiveth  the  order  of  priesthood, 
the  receivers  humbly  kneeling  upon 
their  knees,  and  the  bishop  saying, 
"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the 
office  and  work  of  a  priest  in  the 
Church  of  God,  now  committed 
unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of 
our  hands." 


Directory. 

The  candidate  shall  kneel  down 
in  the  most  convenient  part  of  the 
Church.  Then  the  presiding  minis- 
ter shall,  by  prayer,  and  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, according  to  the  Apostolic 
example,  solemnly  ordain  him  to 
the  holy  office  of  the  gospel  minis- 
try. Prayer  being  ended,  he  shall 
rise  from  his  knees ;  and  the  min- 
ister who  presides  first  and  after- 
ward all  the  members  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  their  order,  take  him  by 
the  right  hand,  saying,  in  words  to 
this  purpose,  "We  give  you  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  to  take 
part  of  this  ministry  with  us." 


In  this  ceremony  the  presiding  minister  is  to  be  compared 
with  the  bishop,  and  the  Presbytery  with  the  two  or  more  pres- 
byters associated  with  the  bishop.  There  is  the  same  ceremony 
essentially,  but  there  are  two  striking  differences :  (^d)  In  the 
one  case  the  bishop  presides  and  directs  the  ceremony  of  ordi- 
nation. The  bishop  is  the  permanent  head  of  the  Diocese,  and 
the  authority  of  the  Diocese  centres  in  him.  He  has  been 
chosen  bishop  because  he  is  the  most  honored,  the  most  revered, 
and  the  most  efficient  of  the  presbyters.  His  presidency  is 
permanent,  and  thereby  of  higher  rank,  giving  to  the  whole 
service  dignity  and  unity.  The  presiding  minister  of  the 
Presbytery  may  be,  and  often  is,  one  of  the  least  honored  and 
least  revered  members  of  the  Presbytery.  He  adds  no  dignity 
to  the  occasion,  and  if  it  should  happen,  as  it  not  infrequently 
does,  that  he  presides  for  the  first  time,  his  presiding  in  the 
ordination  lacks  grace  and  propriety,  and  in  so  far  disturbs  the 


Christian  Rciniion.  65 

solemnity  of  the  occasion.  Unless  we  mistake,  it  is  a  common 
experience  in  connection  with  the  cerenKjny  of  Presbyterian 
ordination  that  candidates,  presbyters,  and  people,  all  alike 
rei^'ret  that  some  other  more  honored  and  nKjre  graceful  jjres- 
byter  had  not  been  called  upon  to  preside.  A  shifting  modera- 
tor lacks  the  propriety,  grace,  and  dignity  attached  to  the 
presidency  of  the  bishops  in  the  government  and  in  the  cere- 
monies of  the  Church.  Episcopal  ordination  therefore  is 
greatly  to  be  preferred  to  ordinalToh  Ly  a  temporary  presiding 
presbyter. 

(b)  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  to  compare  the  two  or  more 
presbyters  who  are  associated  with  the  bishop  in  Episcopal 
ordination,  with  the  body  of  presbyters,  organized  as  a  Presby- 
tery, who  take  part  in  Presbyterial  ordination.  This  body  of 
presbyters,  embracing  the  pastors  of  the  congregations  and 
other  grave  and  venerable  members  who  may  be  present,  all 
with  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  candidate,  and  subse- 
quently giving  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  make  the 
ceremony  a  very  impressive  one,  that  is  never  forgotten  by  the 
candidates.  This  impressiveness,  this  weight  of  authority,  this 
extent  of  influence,  seems  to  be  lacking  in  the  Episcopal  cere- 
mony. Presbyterian  ordination  is  the  official  act  of  the  entire 
body  of  ministers  in  the  Presbytery,  and  therefore  of  the  Pres- 
byTenan  Church  as  such,  in  the  exercise  of  its  Presbyterial 
functfons.  Episcopal  ordination  lacks  this  authority  of  the 
organized  Presbytery,  and  concentrates  the  attention  upon  the 
authority  of  the  bishop.  It  is  the  common  theory,  if  we  mistake 
notT  in  the  Episcopal  Church  that  the  presbj'ters  are  merely 
attendants  on  the  bishop  and  that  they  do  not  represent  the 
body  of  presbyters  in  their  act.  It  seems  to  be  the  common 
opinion  that  the  term  "  our  hands "  in  the  Ordinal  does  not 
refer  to  the  hands  of  bishop  and  presbyters,  but  only  to  the 
bishop's  hands,  speaking  as  the  head  of  the  Church.  We  may 
be  permitted  to  doubt,  however,  whether  that  was  the  original 
meaning  of  the  phrase. 

When  the  two  ceremonies  are  compared,  each  has  its  advan- 
tages and  its  disadvantages.  If  the  bishop  took  the  place  of  the 
presiding  minister  in  the  Directory,  and  the  Presbytery  took  the 
place  of  the  two  or  more  attending  presbyters  of  the  Ordinal,  the 
two  ceremonies  would  be  equally  improved  by  becoming  identi- 
cal.    When  the  happy  union  is  consummated,  Episcopacy  and 

S 


66  The  Church  Review. 

Presbytery  may  each  contribute  an  equal  share  to  a  Church  that 
will  be  higher,  better,  and  more  efficient  than  either. 

The  difficulty  here  is  not  as  to  the  future;  that  will  take  care 
of  itself.  The  difficulty  is  in  making  the  transition.  Let  us 
see  what  that  difficulty  practically  is.  The  difficulty  is  with  the 
theory  of  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry  as  resting  on  Divine 
right.  Those  in  the  Episcopal  Churches  who  do  not  accept  this 
theory  would  have  little  difficulty  in  recognizing  the  validity  of 
Presbyterian  ordination  as  to  essence.  Presbyterian  ordination 
has  all  the  virtue  in  it  that  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbyters  can  impart  It  only  lacks  that  virtue  that  comes 
from  the  bishop's  hands.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  ordina- 
tion has  been  carefully  guarded  in  Presbyterian  Churches.  No 
minister  enters  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Great  Britain 
without  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  or  body  of 
presbyters,  with  a  moderator  presiding  over  them.  The  Presby- 
teries of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Great  Britain  when  the 
Episcopal  Church  was  disestablished  had  been  ordained  with 
few  exceptions  by  Episcopal  as  well  as  Presbyterial  ordination 
Those  few  had  been  ordained  by  the  Presbyteries  of  Swiss, 
French,  Dutch,  and  German  Churches  in  the  same  orderly 
manner.  The  founders  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were  regu- 
larly ordained,  at  least  a  sufficient  number  of  them,  even  accord- 
ing to  the  highest  theory  of  the  Episcopal  function.  If  these 
presbyters  were  entitled  to  share  with  bishops  in  the  ordination 
of  other  presbyters,  in  accordance  with  the  lawful  practice  of 
the  ancient  Churches  and  the  Church  of  England  and  her 
daughters,  so  far  as  they  could  transmit  authority  as  presbyters, 
they  transmitted  it  to  the  presbyters  that  they  ordained.  If 
they  transmitted  anything  when  ordaining  with  bishops,  they 
transmitted  the  same  when  ordaining  without  bishops.  What 
is  lacking,  therefore,  and  the  only  thing  that  is  lacking  in  the 
ordination  of  Presbyterian  ministers,  is  that  virtue  and  that  alone 
that  comes  from  the  Diocesan  bishop's  hands.  Presbyterial 
ordination  therefore  may  be  incomplete,  but  it  is  an  ordination 
in  part,  so  far  as  presbyters  can  ordain.  If  ordination  belongs 
to  the  bishop  alone,  then  Presbyterian  ministers  have  not  been 
ordained.  If  presbyters  are  simply  the  attendants  of  the  bishop, 
and  their  participation  adds  nothing  to  the  ordination,  then 
Presbyterian  ministers  are  not  ordained.  But  if  the  participa- 
tion of  presbyters   has  some  importance,  if  their  participation 


Chrislian  Rciniion.  67 

in  ordination  communicates  any  grace  or  autliority,  then  fhcy 
may  communicate  that  grace  and  autliority  \vhcne\'cr  they  are 
properly  organized  as  a  Presbytery  to  act.  It  may  be  asked 
which,  indeed,  is  the  more  vahd  ordination,  —  that  by  presbyters 
without  a  bishop,  or  that  by  a  bishop  without  the  co-operation  of 
presbyters.  Tlie  authority  of  the  Scriptures  can  be  cited  for  the 
former,  but  the  latter  has  been  regarded  as  irregular,  even  in 
Episcopal  Churches;  and  yet  such  irregular  ordinations  have 
taken  place  in  the  Church  of  England.  Against  them  the  Puri- 
tans rightly  complained.  And  yet  these  ordinations  by  bishops 
alone,  that  were  irregular,  were  not  regarded  as  invalid.  Why, 
then,  should  ordination  by  presbyteries  alone  be  regarded  as 
invalid?  The  Church  of  Scotland  is  an  independent  National 
Church,  as  truly  a  National  Church  as  the  Church  of  England, 
and  so  recognized  at  the  settlement  of  the  Revolution.  Those 
who  question  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  ministry  of 
that  Church  and  her  daughters  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
National  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters,  have  no  more 
warrant  so  to  do  than  the  Church  of  Scotland  would  have  to 
deny  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
of  England  and  her  daughters.  The  two  Churches  were  organ- 
ized by  ecclesiastical  and  civil  law,  and  are  on  an  equality 
before  the  law  in  Great  Britain.  The  Church  of  Enerland  is 
Episcopal,  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England  is  Dissent- 
ing. The  Church  of  Scotland  is  Presbyterian,  and  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  Scotland  is  Dissenting.  In  the  United  States  the 
daughters  of  these  two  National  Churches  are  on  an  equality 
before  the  law;  the  one  is  as  much  the  Church  of  the  United 
States  as  the  other.  The  two  National  Churches  have  different 
theories  and  methods  of  ordination.  The  one  is  as  regular  and 
lawful  as  the  other,  and  there  is  as  genuine  Apostolical  suc- 
cession in  the  one  as  in  the  other.  The  Church  of  Scotland 
has  her  succession  through  the  presbyter-bishops.  The  Church 
of  England  traces  her  succession  through  the  Diocesan  bishops. 
On  the  theory  of  two  orders  by  Divine  right  the  Presbyterial 
ordination  is  valid  only  so  far  as  the  ordination  by  presb}'ters 
is  concerned,  and  invalid  for  the  failure  of  the  bishop's  hands. 
But  on  the  theory  that  the  bishop  is  only  jure  hinnano,  and 
therefore  not  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  where 
a  National  Church  is  organized  without  Diocesan  bishops,  ordi- 
nation by  presbyters  is  valid  and   orderly.      All  who   do   not 


68  The  Ckurc/i  Review. 

accept  the  j:ire  divino  theory  of  the  Episcopate  should  agree 
to  this. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  recognition  of  Presbyterian 
ordination  are  ancient  difficulties  that  we  should  feel  bound  to 
respect  and  to  remove  if  possible.  The  difficulty  is  practically 
this:  If  a  Presbyterian  should  apply  for  admission  to  the 
Episcopal  Church,  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  be  con- 
firmed and  ordained.  If  an  Episcopal  minister  should  seek 
admission  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  would  be  necessary  for 
him  to  be  voted  upon  after  examination  by  the  Session  of  a 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  then  received  into  a  Presbytery  after 
his  subscription  to  the  Westminster  Confession.  The  difficulty 
in  the  one  case  would  be  ceremonial,  in  the  other  case  it  would 
be  doctrinal  subscription.  These  barriers  are  purely  ecclesias- 
tical ones.  They  are  fences  set  up  in  the  interest  of  the  good 
order  of  the  Church.  Let  us  consider  the  additional  difficulties 
our  fathers  had  in  their  way.  In  1 66 1  two  thousand  parish 
ministers  were  thrust  out  of  their  charges  in  England  because 
they  could  not  take  the  following  oaths:  (i)  Non-resistance 
and  passive  obedience  to  bishop  and  king;  (2)  Conformity  to 
the  Liturgy;  (3)  Renouncing  the  solemn  league  and  covenant 
to  which  they  had  previously  sworn.  During  the  Presbyterian 
supremacy  hundreds  of  parish  priests  had  been  removed  because 
they  refused  to  sv/ear  to  the  covenant.  No  one  could  be  or- 
dained during  that  period,  and  subsequently,  according  to  the 
Directory,  who  did  not  take  *'  the  covenant  of  the  three  king- 
doms." It  was  not  simply  a  matter  of  ordination  on  either  side. 
These  ancient  fences  have  been  broken  down ;  others  still  re- 
main. It  would  be  possible  for  the  Presbyterian  Session  to 
waive  its  right  of  examination ;  it  would  be  possible  for  the 
Presbyterian  Church  to  reduce  its  subscription  from  the  West- 
minster Confession  to  the  Nicehe  Creed  or  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
I  suppose  it  would  be  possible  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  to  waive  the  ceremony  of  confirmation  in  the  admission 
of  members  of  Presbyterian  Churches,  and  to  waive  the  cere- 
mony of  ordination  by  those  who  had  been  ordained  by  the 
laying  on  of  the   hands  of  the  Presbytery. 

I  was  informed  by  high  authority  immediately  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  Lambeth  Conference  that  a  very  considerable 
proportion  of  that  Conference  would  be  willing  to  recognize 
Presbyterial   ordination   under   certain  conditions,  but  that  the 


Chrisiiau  Reunion.  69 

time   had    not   come   to   take    definite  aeti(jn.     15ishop  Vincent 
confirms  this  testimony  when   he  says:  — 

1)111  one  expedient  so  far,  has  been  ])roposed  \vhi(  h  promises  to 
meet  the  difficulty  in  any  practical  way,  and  that  is  the  i^roposition  of 
Bishop  Charles  Wordsworth  of  the  Scottish  Chureh,  made  thnnigh  a 
committee  of  the  last  Lambeth  Conference.  It  was  substantially  this  : 
that  we  should  now  recognize  the  full  ministerial  standing  of  clergymen 
presbyterially  ordained,  providing  that  hereafter  all  their  ordinations 
should  be  by  bishops.  The  report  of  the  Committee  says :  '  While 
the  Church  in  her  XXIII.  Article  lays  down  the  necessity  of  the  minis- 
try as  a  sacred  order,  commissioned  by  "those  who  have  public  au- 
thority given  them  in  the  congregation ;  "  and  while  for  herself  ^\\q  has 
defined  this  expression  by  insisting  in  her  own  Communion  on  Episcopal 
ordination,  she  has  nowhere  declared  that  all  other  constituted  ministry 
is  null  and  void.'  This  proposition  was  not  accepted  by  the  Confer- 
ence, and  probably  for  two  good  reasons,  if  for  no  other :  because  it 
was  not  prepared  to  act  so  suddenly  in  so  serious  a  matter,  and  also 
because,  being  only  a  Conference,  it  had  no  authority  so  to  act.  But  it 
should  also  be  said  that  ten  out  of  the  twelve  members  of  the  Committee 
voted  for  it,  and  that  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  expressed  his  'very 
full  and  hearty  sympathy  with  it '  [Vincent,  Address  on  Chiu'ch  Unity, 
pp.  34-36]. 

I  have  been  deeply  interested  in  this  matter  of  ordination  in 
connection  with  the  question  of  the  reunion  of  Christendom,  and 
it  has  come  upon  me  as  a  surprise  that  the  divided  Church  has 
been  thinking  of  ordination  from  the  same  point  of  view  as 
the  Church  used  to  do  when  there  was  but  one  Church  in  a 
nation.  Presbyterians  recognize  the  ordination  of  Roman  Catho- 
lics and  Episcopalians  as  w^ell  as  other  denominations. 

They  put  up  the  barrier  at  doctrinal  subscription.  The  Epis- 
copal Church  recognizes  Roman  Catholic  ordination  as  well 
as  her  own,  but  refuses  Presbyterial  ordination.  The  Roman 
Catholics  reject  Episcopal  ordination  as  well  as  Presbyterial. 
But  after  all,  something  more  than  ordination  is  required  for 
the  exercise  of  the  ministry  in  all  of  our  denominations.  The 
Lord  Bishop  of  London  w^ould  not  be  received  to  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  without  subscription.  His  ordination  would  be  re- 
cognized, but  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  exercise  his  ministry 
in  the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  He  might  preach, 
but  so  might  a  layman.     He  could  not  become  a  pastor  of  a 


70  The  CJmrch  Review. 

congregation,  and  he  could  not  rule  as  a  presbyter  in  tlie  Pres- 
byterian Church.  I  apprehend  that  an  Episcopal  rector  or 
bishop  would  have  no  difficulty  in  allowing  a  Presbyterian 
minister  to  preach  a  sermon  or  to  deliver  a  lecture  in  an  Epis- 
copal church  or  cathedral.  The  question  to  him  would  be 
simply  a  matter  of  good  order  very  much  the  same  as  if  a  lay- 
evangelist  were  to  be  admitted  to  a  Presbyterian  pulpit.^ 

The  difficulty  of  ministerial  recognition  comes  precisely  where 
it  would  come  in  a  Presbyterian  Church ;  namely,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  government  and  discipline,  and  in  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  for  these  are  the  functions  of  the  presbyter's 
office.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  not  in  dispute.  That 
may  be  done  by  laymen  in  all  the  denominations,  but  the  office 
of  presbyter  can  be  entered  upon  only  by  ordination  after 
examination. 

The  ordination  in  one  denomination  will  not  suffice  for  an- 
other denomination.  Examination,  and  in  many  cases  subscrip- 
tion also,  will  be  required  of  all  those  who  have  been  ordained 
in  other  denominations.  The  Church  in  this  way  gives  authority 
to  the  candidate  to  exercise  the  office  of  presbyter.  It  gives  its 
authority.  But  it  can  only  impart  the  authority  it  has.  The 
Presbytery  of  New  York  can  give  authority  by  examination, 
subscription,  and  ordination  to  a  presbyter  to  labor  as  pres- 
byter in  the  bounds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  it  cannot 
give  him  authority  to  act  as  presbyter  within  the  bounds  of 
any  other  denomination.  If  I  desired  to  be  a  presbyter  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to 
be  received  by  a  Conference  and  have  its  authority  to  serve  in 
one  of  the  Churches  under  its  care.  If  I  desired  to  serve  as  a 
presbyter  in  the  Baptist  Church,  it  would  be  necessary  for  me 
to  be  immersed  and  then  recognized  as  a  presbyter  after  ex- 
amination before  a  council  of  Baptist  presbyters  called  for  the 
purpose.  If  I  desired  to  serve  as  presbyter  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  it  would  be  necessary  to  be  ordained  by  a 
Diocesan  bishop.  As  it  appears  to  me,  there  are  obstacles  in 
every  case;   the  most  difficult  ones  are  with  the  Baptists.     But 

1  I  cannot  find  that  the  Canons  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  are  anymore 
exclusive  than  the  Directory  of  Worship  and  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  may  be  that  the  Episcopal  clergy  are  stricter  in  their  adherence  to  the 
laws  of  the  Church,  and  the  Presbyterian  ministry  are  more  independent  in  their  at- 
titude to  their  own  rules.  But  it  may  be  questioned  whether  good  order  is  not  better 
than  license,  even  when  the  laws  are  wrong  and  ought  to  be  repealed. 


CJiristian  R 


c  union. 


7« 


suppose  that  an  Episcopal  bishop  were  called  to  serve  as  a  pas- 
tor within  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  he  could 
not  serve  without  examination  before  the  Presbytery  and  sub- 
scription to  the  Westminster  Confession.  I  d^nibt  whetlier  an 
P^piscopal  rector  would  find  it  any  easier  to  beccjnie  a  Presbyte- 
rian presbyter  than  it  would  be  for  a  Presbyterian  pastor  to 
become  an  P^piscopal  priest.  The  denominations  are  all  pro- 
ceeding on  a  theory  of  ordination  in  the  Church  which  was 
sufficiently  valid  when  there  was  but  one  National  Church  which 
could  impart  authority  to  a  minister  to  exercise  the  functions  of  a 
presbyter  anywhere  in  the  land.  But  this  is  no  lonc^^er  the  case. 
An  Episcopal  ordination  does  not  give  a  minister  as  wide  an  op- 
portunity of  usefulness  as  Presbyterial  ordination.  Presbyterial 
ordination  does  not  give  as  wide  an  opportunity  of  ministerial 
service  as  ordination  to  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  Each  of  the  denominations  ordains  its  own  ministry, 
and  the  ministers  thus  ordained  are  divided  into  different  camps. 
The  question  arises  w4iy  ordained  ministers  should  not  go  from 
the  one  denomination  to  the  other?  The  difficulty  in  the  way  is  a 
lack  of  organic  union  between  the  denominations.  If  there  were 
such  an  organic  union  by  way  of  federation  in  the  constitution 
of  a  council  representing  the  supreme  courts  of  all  the  denomi- 
nations, then  the  organic  union  thus  consummated  would  be  able 
to  arrange  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  the  ministry  and  work 
of  the  several  branches  of  the  reunited  Church.  I  do  not  see 
any  other  w^ay  of  overcoming  the  separation  than  by  organic 
unity,  by  confederation  first  and  consolidation  afterward.  The 
recognition  of  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  ordination  will  not 
remove  the  difficulty  unless  it  is  connected  w^ith  federation  or 
consolidation.  It  would  remove  a  strife  of  words  and  misap- 
prehensions of  many  kinds,  but  it  would  not  make  the  presbyter 
of  one  denomination  into  a  presbyter  in  another  denomination. 
I  see  only  two  ways  of  accomplishing  this.  The  one  is  for  a 
considerable  number  of  presbyters  to  become  presbyters  in  two 
or  more  denominations  at  the  same  time,  and  thus  become  con- 
necting links  pulling  them  together.  The  other  is  for  all  or- 
ganized bodies  of  presbyters  to  become  members  of  a  larger 
body,  comprehending  in  one  vast  organism  all  the  ministry  of 
our  country.  That  is  the  ideal  that  Christian  men  and  women 
of  all  denominations  should  keep  steadfastly  in  view,  that  we 
all  may  be  one,  having  one  Bible,  one  creed,  one  baptism,  one 


72 


The  Church  Review. 


Table  of  the  LORD,  one  ministry  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  one 
Holy  Spirit,  one  reigning  Saviour,  one  God  and  Father  of 
all,  over  all,  through  all,  and  in  all. 

Charles  A.  Briggs. 


Professor    Egbert    C.   Smyth,   D.D.    [Congregational], 
Professor  in  Theological  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  :  — 

ON  account  of  special  and  pressing  engagements,  I  was 
obliged  to  decline  your  invitation  to  contribute  to  the 
proposed  Symposium  on  Church  Reunion;  but  your  subse- 
quent urgent  request  that  I  would  give  at  least  some  brief  ex- 
pression of  my  views  leaves  me  no  alternative,  lest  I  should 
seem  indifferent  to  your  courtesy  and  unappreciative  of  the 
object  you  would  promote. 

My  training  and  convictions  lead  me  always  to  think  of  the 
Church  as  a  Divine  Kingdom,  as  a  fellowship  of  men  with  GOD 
and  with  one  another  on  the  basis  of  the  Incarnation,  and  of  re- 
demption, and  to  give  supremacy  to  what  is  vital  and  spiritual 
according  to  the  prayer  of  our  LORD,  —  "  That  they  may  ail  be 
one ;  even  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they 
also  may  be  in  us,  .  .  o  I  in  them,  and  Thou  in  Me,  that  they 
may  be  perfected  into  one."  Starting  thus  with  what  is  spirit- 
ual, and  anticipating  its  triumph  in  the  consummation,  I  believe 
also,  perhaps  all  the  more  firmly  on  this  account,  in  an  ever 
increasing  manifestation  of  unity;  for  the  spiritual  life  of  the 
Church  is  a  principle  of  fellowship  and  organization,  and  re- 
quires agencies  and  methods  of  organization,  and  is  the  one 
power,  from  and  through  the  HOLY  Spirit,  capable  of  producing 
a  real  and  manifested  union  of  all  disciples  and  Churches  of 
Christ.  I  could  not,  at  least  without  protest,  belong  to  a  so- 
ciety calling  itself  a  Church,  that  excluded  from  its  fundamental 
conception  the  ideal  of  one  visible  Catholic  Church  of  CHRIST ; 
and  I  believe  that  the  progress  of  history,  notwithstanding  the 
schisms  that  exist  or  may  arise,  has  been  and  will  be  toward 
this  goal,  —  a  manifested  fellowship  of  all  believers. 

There  are  many  signs  of  this  movement  to-day,  particularly 
the  changes  which  are  becoming  apparent  in  conviction  and 
feeling.     Among  these  I  may  mention  an  uneasy  and  growing 


C/iristia7i  Rcu7iion.  70 

/J 

sense  that  many  present  divisions  arc  not  (mXy  unnecessary,  jjut 
wrong;  that  our  denominationaHsni  has  much  in  it  of  sectarian- 
ism ;  that  many  causes  and  reasons  of  its  existence  have  lost 
their  original  force ;  that  it  involves  an  immense  waste  of  energy 
and  means;  that  the  calls  for  Christian  work,  in  a  world  now 
open  as  never  before  to  the  gospel,  require  f(jr  their  answer 
an  immense  increase  in  the  spirit  and  agencies  of  Christian 
co-operation. 

Among  tlic  most  immediate  and  practical  methods  of  pro- 
moting a  Christian  fellowship  that  will  affect  outward  activities 
and  find  expression  in  organic  forms,  the  one  proposed  by  the 
American  bishops  in  1886,  and  indorsed  by  the  Lambeth  Con- 
ference, seems  to  me  to  be  peculiarly  suggestive  and  promising. 
It  presents  a  noble  example  of  a  sincere  and  serious  endeavor 
to  promote  Church  unity  by  searching  out  and  cultivating  ex- 
isting agreements  ;  by  a  renunciation,  as  a  condition  of  union,  of 
many  things  which  are  deemed  excellent  in  themselves  and  are 
not  to  be  abandoned  ;  by  a  recognition  of  steps  and  stages  of 
union  and  the  expression  of  readiness  to  enter  into  conference 
with  other  bodies  for  a  better  understanding  of  each  other's 
positions.  I  regard  this  action  as  a  -  most  honorable  and 
imperative  challenge  to  the  nobility  of  all  other  Christian 
Communions  to  do  likewise,  to  enter  upon  a  like  process  of 
self-examination,  and  to  define  to  themselves  in  what  ways  they 
can  promote  the  same  end.  If  after  this  has  been  carefully 
done,  there  could  be  conferences  as  proposed,  I  should  antici- 
pate very  beneficial  results. 

The  first  work  is  within  each  denomination,  although  it  may 
be  stimulated  and  clarified  by  contemporaneous  and  wider  dis- 
cussion. Each  body,  it  seems  to  me,  is  now  summoned  by 
myriad  voices  to  adjust  itself  to  the  great  principle  of  Christian 
catholicity.  This  does  not  involve  an-  abandonment  of  its  own 
special  treasures  of  thought  or  life  or  equipment  for  service. 
Unity  is  not  uniformity  in  the  Church  any  more  than  in  Nature. 
But  it  does  signify  a  strenuous,  it  may  be  a  sacrificial,  endeavor 
to  put  aw^ay  as  a  term  of  Church  communion,  ever}-thing  which 
cannot  vindicate  for  itself  the  predicate  of  essentiality,  every- 
thing which  cannot  fairly  claim  the  sanction  of  S.  Vincent's 
Rule,  when  this  is  interpreted  so  as  to  include  the  Apostolic 
Church  and  Age,  and  according  to  the  nature  and  demeanor  of 
a  Christianity  fitted  to  be  universal.     Whatever,  in  any  body,  is 


74  The  Church  Review, 

extra-Christian,  as  well  as  what  is  uii-Christian,  whatever  goes 
beyond  the  simplicity  of  faith  in  CHRIST,  and  the  demands  of 
a  fellowship  on  the  basis  of  a  common  redemption,  —  however 
desirable  in  itself,  however  it  may  contribute  to  the  enrichment 
of  Christian  life  and  the  efficiency  of  Church  organization, — 
should  not  stand  as  a  barrier  to  the  visible  communion  of 
Churches  .one  with  another,  or,  so  far  as  this  may  be  called  for, 
their  organic  union  or  reunion.  If  each  body  would  hold  its 
acquisitions  for  the  common  good,  and  cultivate  its  agreements 
with  every  other,  and  guard  its  own  treasures,  that  it  may  have 
the  more  to  give,  helping  others  to  larger  views  of  truth  or 
nobler  forms  of  worship,  or  more  orderly  and  effective  methods 
of  administration,  if  each  Communion  would  put  by,  in  dealing 
with  others  where  common  confession  or  labor  is  desirable,  all 
that  interferes  with  such  co-operation,  the  cause  of  reunion 
would  receive  an   immense  impulse. 

I  might,  perhaps,  stop  here ;  yet  as  you  suggest  in  your  let- 
ter that  each  contributor  is  expected  to  speak  only  for  himself, 
I  judge  that  you  desire  some  expression  of  opinion  respecting 
the  acceptability  of  the  basis  of  agreement  which  you  enclose. 

For  myself,  I  accept  it  as  proposed,  and  should  ask  for  no 
change  in  its  terms.  Considering  it,  however,  as  a  means  to  an 
end,  there  are  two  points  in  respect  to  w^iich  discussion  is 
likely  to  arise,  and  greater  explicitness  may  be  desirable. 

One  point  is  the  reference  to  the  Nicene  Creed.  As  the 
proposed  reunion  is  limited  to  English-speaking  bodies  of  Chris- 
tians, it  may  be  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  raise  the  question 
whether  the  original  and  Ecumenical  or  the  Western  forrn^of 
the  Creed  is  proposed.  Yet  it  w^uld  seem  to  be  desirable,  in 
such  a  movement,  to  proceed  from  the  outset  on  the  broadest 
basis.  I  would,  indeed,  be  thankful  for  any  measure  of  success, 
and  would  not  use  the  best  as  the  enemy  of  the  good.  Yet  the 
ideal  method  may  be  the  most  practical  in  the  long  run,  and 
be  attended  on  the  whole  with  the  least  friction.  The  one  de- 
cisive reason,  I  suppose,  for  singling  out  the  Nicene  Creed  as 
a  doctrinal  statement  is  its  ecumenical  significance.  It  is  in 
every  way  much  to  be  desired  that  Oriental  Christianity  should 
receive  impulse  from,  and  come  into  closer  relations  with.  West- 
ern. A  union  within  the  latter,  by  outward  fellowship,  by 
alliance,  by  organic  reunion,  by  whatever  may  prove  feasible  or 
most  excellent,  is  a  great  good  to  be  specially  sought  for;   but 


Cliristiaii  Reunion.  jr 

would  not  a  better  result  still  be  to  secure  with  this  an  open  way 
to  a  larger  fellowship?  The  Western  doctrine  of  the  Si'iRiT 
would  not  thereby  be  disparaged.  No  Western  creed  would  be 
changed.  If  one  addition  to  the  Ecumenical  Creed  is  insisted 
upon,  what  shall  be  said  to  those  who  may  ask  for  others? 
The  power  of  the  proposal  lies  in  its  breadth  and  cathcjlicity. 
Any  departure  from  this  will  prove,  I  fear,  a  disadvantage  at 
the  start.  What  is  ultimately  aimed  at  is  not  an  Anglican  re- 
union, but  an  ecumenical  one;  and  a  basis  large  enough  for 
such  a  fellowship  is  likely  to  be  most  effective  at  every  stage 
of  the  process. 

From  this  point  of  view  I  should  query  whether  the  Nicene 
Creed  —  which  I  heartily  accept  in  its  Western  form  —  even 
as  originally  put  forth,  might  not  be  kept  subordinate  to  the 
Apostles'  in  the  discussion  of  terms  of  union.  The  former, 
indeed,  has  its  own  inestimable  advantages,  and  I  should  regret 
its  displacement  in  confession  and  worship.  When  historically 
interpreted,  it  simply  adds  to  earlier  creeds  an  unmistakable 
affirmation  of  the  true  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  HOLY 
Spirit,  —  fundamental  beliefs  of  the  Christian  Church.  Yet  I 
would  not  exclude  from  a  scheme  of  Church  union  any  body 
of  Christians  that  acknowledges  Jesus  Christ  as  SAVIOUR  and 
Lord,  and  seeks  to  do  His  will,  and  desires  fellowship  in  Him 
and  His  SPIRIT,  even  if  it  were  not  ready  to  accept  the  definition 
of  Nicsea.  When  some  hesitated  to  apply  to  the  HOLY  SPIRIT 
the  Nicene  term,  *'  co-essential,"  S.  Basil  waived  it,  and  Atha- 
nasius  justified  him.  Christian  unity  may  require  at  times  that 
the  Church  should  go  back  of  theological  tests,  however  true 
they  may  be,  to  the  fundamental  facts  of  Christianity,  to 
a  confession  which  embodies  them,  and  to  the  spirit  of  disci- 
pleship.  Those  who  acknowledge  jESUS'  Lordship  and  strive 
to  do  the  will  of  GOD  may  be  trusted  to  the  sure  method  of  the 
Divine  promise  and  to  an  authority  that  transcends  that  of  the 
Ecclcsia  docens. 

The  other  point  is  the  "  Historic  Episcopate."  The  phrase 
is  an  elastic  one,  —  intentionally  so,  I  presume.  It  covers  a 
fact,  not  a  theory  of  its  origin  or  significance.  The  discussion 
which  is  invited  will  inevitably  reveal  difTerences  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  perhaps  will  raise  some  delicate  questions.  For  my- 
self I  am  free  to  say  that  many  years  of  study  of  the  history 
of  the  Church  leave  little  doubt  in  my  mind  that  a  distinction 


76  The  Church  Review. 

of  office,  or  function,  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  has  its 
root  in  the  ApostoHc  Age,  and  appears  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  almost  from  the  beginning,  and  elsewhere 
so  close  upon  the  same  formative  period  as  to  imply  a  begin- 
ning within  it.  The  institution  of  the  Episcopate,  moreover, 
is  not  only  thus  venerable,  but  it  is  the  distinctive  mark  of  a 
type  of  polity  which  can  claim  beyond  all  others  steadfastness, 
continuity,  power  of  survival  and  of  adaptation.  Other  forms, 
whatever  their  special  excellences,  are  comparatively  untried 
and  provincial.  I  cannot  but  think  there  is  a  good  in  such  an 
institution  for  the  Church  Universal.  Yetas  an  office  it  is 
not  more  continuous  than  that  of  the  pastorate,  nor  as  universal. 
I  do  not,iind  it  everywhere  original  with  the  Christian  Church, 
nor  even  general  in  the  primitive  Churches,  nor  anywhere  in 
Apostolic  teaching  made  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  the  being, 
nor  even  of  the  well-being,  of  the  Christian  Church.  When, 
therefore,  acceptance  of  it  is  made  a  condition  of  reunion,  the 
scope  of  such  unit}^  is  somewhat  strictly  defined,  and  the  query 
is  suggested  whether  a  question  of  principle  is  not  necessarily 
raised,  —  whether,  for  instance,  the  Episcopate,  as  distinct  from 
the  Presbyterate,  or  the  pastorate,  or  the  Christian  ministry 
even,  is  not  co-ordinated  as  a  term  of  union  with  creed  and 
sacraments.  In  such  an  issue  there  can  be  no  question  where 
the  mass  of  the  members  of  non-Episcopal  bodies  would  be 
found.  Probably  few  of  them  are  prepared  to  welcome  an 
Episcopal  constitution  as  at  present  desirable  or  expedient; 
but  if  discussion  should  change  their  attitude  here,  it  is  not 
likely  to  alter  it  on  the  other  question.  On  this  line  I  should 
regard  the  prospect  of  reunion,  organic  or  otherwise,  as  not 
much  helped  by  the  Lambeth  proposal.  But  I  do  not  thus 
understand  this  article.  It  treats  of  the  Episcopate  solely  as 
a  historic  fact,  and  thus  opens  an  inviting  field  for  discussion. 
Probably  here  too  the  wisest  method  is  for  each  body  in  the 
first  instance  to  consider  the  question  from  its  own  point  of 
view,  and  with  reference  to  its  own  responsibilities,  including 
that  of  doing  what  it  can  to  promote  the  great  end  of  Christian 
unity.  In  such  a  movement  the  proposal  of  the  bishops  and 
of  the  Lambeth  Conference  will  have,  I  doubt  not,  a  legitimate 
and  helpful  influence,  raising  an  important  question  for  each 
non-Episcopal  body,  stimulating  any  tendency  that  may  already 
exist  carefully  to  consider  the  essential  value  of  the  Episcopal 


Chvistia7i  Rc?i 


111  on. 


office,  and  in  still  other  ways  contributing  to  a  thoughtful  con- 
sideration of  this  aspect  of  tlic  problems  of  Church  fellowship 
and  unity. 

Renewing  the  expression  of  a  respectful  and  cordial  recogni- 
tion of  the  value  of  the  proposals  you  enclose   in  your  letter, 
and  regretting  that   I  am  obliged  to  write   under  special  disad- 
vantages as  to  leisure  and  time, 
I  remain. 

Yours  very  respectfully  and  truly, 

Egbert  C.  Smyth. 


Rev.  Edward  T.   Horn,  D.D.   [Lutheran],   Charleston, 
S.  C,  President  of  the  United  Synod  of  the  Soutil 

I  AM  asked  by  the  Editor  of  this  Review  to  ''send  my  views 
on  the  subject  of  Christian  Reunion  in  general,  and  how  far 
the  basis  proposed  (by  the  House  of  Bishops  in  1886  and  in- 
dorsed with  slight  modifications  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  in 
1888)  meets  with  my  approval."  He  adds,  "Of  course  it  will 
be  understood  that  each  writer  will  speak  only  for  himself." 

The  Basis  for  Reunion  proposed  by  the  Lambeth  Conference 
is  an  advance  upon  that  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  In  this 
whole  matter  it  is  necessary  that  words  should  be  used  in  one 
determinate  sense  ;  and  vague  terms  should  not  be  adopted  with 
a  view  to  the  comprehension  of  a  variety  of  opinions.  I  am 
far  from  believing  that  the  House  of  Bishops  intended  to  sug- 
gest a  vague  formula.  From  the  beginning  I  have  confided  in 
their  simplicity  of  purpose,  and  have  thought  that  the  Christian 
bodies  they  address  should  reply  with  the  same  simplicity  and 
due  frankness.  BuJ^the  first  particular  in  the  bishops'  formula, 
"  The_Holy  Scriptures  ...  as  the  Revealed  Word  of  GOD," 
seemedTto  me  indefinite.  To  this  the  Lambeth  Conference  adds, 
"  As  containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  and  as  being 
the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith."  The  first  clause  is  a 
quotation  from  the  Article  VL  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
doubtless  indicates  that  the  whole  is  to  be  accepted  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  stated  in  the  Articles.  Add  to  this  the  second 
proposition  of  the  BASIS,  — the  proposition  of  the  Nicene  Creed. 
This,  of  course,  means  not  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  nor  the  more 
finished  Creed  of  Constantinople,  but  the  Nicene  Creed  as  it 


78  The  Church  Review. 

appears  in  all  the  formularies  of  the  Western  Church,  including 
those  set  forth  by  the  bishops  of  these  Churches,  and  therefore 
with  the  addition  of  the  Filioqiie.  This  involves  a  disre- 
gard of  the  Anathema  which  the  Council  of  Ephesus  pro- 
nounced against  all  who  should  add  to  their  Nicene  Creed ;  it 
involves  also  an  abandonment  of  the  notion  of  the  peculiar  and 
binding  authority  of  the  councils  of  the  first  four  centuries,  of 
the  councils  of  the  "  undivided  "  Church.  It  discards  the  opin- 
ion that  the  Universal  Episcopate  is  endowed  with  infallibility 
or  semi-infallibility  as  the  depository  of  Apostolic  tradition, 
and  therefore  is  in  harmony  with  the  XIX.  and  XXI.  Articles 
of  the  Church  of  England,  by  which  it  is  confessed  that  **  things 
ordained  by  General  Councils  as  necessary  to  salvation  have 
neither  strength  nor  authority,  unless  it  may  be  declared  that 
they  be  taken  out  of  Holy  Scripture."  This  is  the  safe  basis, 
acknowledged  by  us ;  and  as  thus  amplified  by  the  Lambeth 
Conference,  and  explained  by  the  second propositioiiy  I  heartily 
indorse  it. 

In  their  second  proposition,  "  The  Nicene  Creed  as  the  suffi- 
cient statement  of  the  Christian  Faith,"  the  bishops,  as  we  see, 
went  beyond  the  first  four  general  councils ;  nor  do  I  see  how 
they  or  we  could  give  up  the  Filioqne  without  sacrificing  the 
Truth  of  God.  But  the  Lambeth  Conference  goes  further:  it 
adds,  "  The  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol."  The 
Apostles'  Creed,  as  we  have  it,  is  the  result  of  a  gradual  develop- 
ment lasting  up  to  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  and  I  do  not 
think  ever  has  been  acknowledged  by  an  Ecumenical  Council.  I 
think  the  Lambeth  Conference  has  done  well  in  this;  but  is  it 
enough?  The  Conference  with  Non-Conformists,  reported  on 
page  277  of  the  last  number  of  this  REVIEW,  adds  the  words, 
"  Including  of  necessity  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the 
Incarnation,  and  the  Atonement."  But  are  the  words,  "  The 
Holy  Christian  Church,"  in  the  Creed,  to  be  defined  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Creeds  of  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  or  not? 
In  the  Rule  of  Faith  proposed,  as  I  have  explicated  it  by  the 
second  member  of  the  Basis,  its  position  with  reference  to  the 
authority  of  bishops  and  councils  and  the  relative  authority  of 
Christian  tradition,  is  a  distinct  acknowledgment  of  the  formal 
principle  of  the  Reformation;  and  no  student  of  ecclesiastical 
history  will  deny  that  it  could  not  have  been  enunciated  before 
that  time.     Why,  if  wc  go  so  far,  ignore  the  material  principle  of 


Christia7i  Raiiiion.  70 

the  Reformation,  wliicli  is  as  real  and  valuable  a  development 
of  Christian  consciuusness  up  to  that  time ;  why  ignore  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  Redemption 
through  Christ  and  of  the  nature  and  operation  of  the  Means 
of  Grace?  I  do  not  think  it  is  possible  to  ignore  any  of  the 
doctrines  which  have  occupied  the  j^'aith  (jf  the  Church,  espe- 
cially those  which  have  been  embodied  in  Creeds.  Nor  should 
we  give  up  one  conviction  which  has  been  begotten  by  the 
Word  of  God.  The  Scriptures,  the  acknowledged  rule,  dare 
be  subordinated  to  no  notion  of  convenience.  Would  it  not  be 
better  to  adopt  the  whole  course  suggested  by  the  additions  of 
the  Lambeth  Conference,  and  take  as  the  point  for  the  compari- 
son of  faiths  the  point  of  departure  itself?  In  the  original 
Confession  the  princes  and  cities  set  down,  first,  wherein  they 
agreed  with  Rome  in  holding  the  historical  Faith ;  and  secondly, 
the  errors  and  abuses  of  Rome  which  they  were  compelled  to 
reject.  In  1565  the  Council  of  Trent  gave  Rome's  final  answer. 
Is  it  not  possible  to  ascertain  definitely  whether  we  still  hold 
that  original  Faith,  —  whether  we  agree  with  Rome  in  so 
far  as  the  Reformers  did,  or  wdiether  we  now  reject  a  part  of 
the  earlier  Faith?  It  will  not  be  held,  I  think,  that  Rome  has 
approached  us  in  the  mean  time.  Can  w^e  not  discover  whether 
we  still  reject  as  errors  and  abuses  what  were  then  rejected? 
But  even  at  Augsburg  there  was  disagreement  among  the  op- 
ponents of  Rome.  Zwingli  sent  his  own  Reckoning  of  Faith,  and 
the  four  cities  united  in  a  confession  of  their  own.  The  English 
purposely  modified  the  Confession  of  the  Germans,  after  pro- 
tracted negotiations  had  been  broken  off,  in  which  the  Germans 
insisted  on  their  doctrine,  and  the  English  were  always  slower 
to  admit  it.  Then  we  have  confessions  without  number,  — 
Helvetic,  Belgic,  Scottish,  Dutch,  Heidelberg,  and  Westminster, 
all  of  that  age,  or  dealing  with  questions  of  that  age.  If  all  the 
Communions  that  then  separated,  as  tenaciously  hold  their  dif- 
ferences, we  may  dismiss  the  hope  of  reunion.  Would  it  not 
be  well  to  go  back  to  the  point  of  departure  and  discover  how 
many  of  those  differences  endure,  and  which  of  them  are  re- 
quired by  the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  which  are  the  outcome  of 
perversity?  In jn^  opinion,  the  Nicene  Creed  is  not  a  suflficient 
statement  of  the  Christian  Faith ;  and  it  seems  that  very  few 
are^ready  to  admit  that  it  is. 

I  have  still  greater  objection  to  the  tJiird  proposition,  though 


So  The  Church  Review, 

the  Lambeth  Conference  has  not  got  so  far  in  its  course  of 
wholesome  amendment.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is  a 
good  deal  of  sound  doctrine  in  this  proposition  too.  The 
requirement  of  the  use  of  the  elements  excludes  the  Romish 
communion  in  one  kind ;  the  agreement  to  *'  minister "  the 
Holy  Sacrament  would  seem  to  forbid  consecration  without 
communion;  and  the  insistence  on  the  Words  of  Institution  sim- 
ply, as  the  only  sine  qua  non  of  valid  consecration,  disposes 
of  those  prayers  and  invocations  by  which  the  Greek  as  well 
as  the  Roman  Church  believes  a  transmutation  of  the  elements 
to  be  wrought.  Here  also  the  bishops  recognize  the  develop- 
ment of  doctrine  which  was  registered  in  the  confessions  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  But  why  stop  here?  On  the  one  hand, 
why  by  such  a  proposition  do  they  allow  the  addition  to  the 
Words  of  Institution  of  those  prayers  and  ceremonies  by  which 
the  Holy  Communion  is  presented  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  an  offer- 
ing for  the  living  and  the  dead?  And  on  the  other  hand,  are 
they  able  to  ignore  the  historical  Faith  of  the  Church  in  the 
Real  Presence  of  our  LORD  in  the  Holy  Sacrament?  Is  not  this 
of  faith  too,  and  can  we,  dare  we,  intimate  that  it  is  of  second- 
ary importance? 

Now,  of  the  fonrth  proposition  I  must  frankly  say  that  I  think 
it  is  a  matter  of  little  importance.  If  agreement  in  the  Faith  can 
be  secured,  I  would  be  very  glad  to  consider  whether  a  govern- 
ment by  bishops,  which  is  recommended  by  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, might  not  be  a  good  polity  to  adopt.  But  the  proposition 
itself,  suggesting  the  retention  of  the  Episcopate  as  a  matter 
co-ordinate  with  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  Sacraments  instituted  by  CHRIST,  causes  us  to  hesitate. 
What  do  the  bishops  mean  by  the  Historic  Episcopate  f  Is 
this  to  be  interpreted  by  the  first  proposition?  Then  we  frankly 
reply,  that  we  find  the  parity  of  the  mxinistry  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Do  they  mean  to  insist  that  the  ministry  of  teaching  the 
Gospel  and  administering  the  Sacraments  was  instituted  by  GOD? 
Then  we  agree  with  them.  Do  they,  in  accordance  with  what 
is  implied  in  the  second  proposition,  give  up  all  assertion  of  the 
semi-infallibility  or  the  peculiar  authority  of  the  Universal  Epis- 
copate ;  or  do  they  mean  by  the  Historic  Episcopate  what  this 
Review  taught  in  the  last  number,  pp.  1 77-181  :  "  All  the  spir- 
itual power  to  be  found  at  any  time  or  anywhere  in  the  Church 
of  Christ  has  come  from  that  order  or  through  that  order?  "    Or 


Christian  Reunioji.  8i 

is  the  Historic  Episcopate  to  be  defined  by  discovering  what 
the  Episcopate  was  like  at  any  particular  time  in  the  history 
of  the  Church,  or  what  it  happens  to  be  in  any  particular  coun- 
try, say  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States?  I  would  not  for  a  moment  insinuate  that  the  bishops 
proposed  a  submission  to  their  own  authority  and  jurisdiction 
as  the  one  prerequisite  of  the  unity  of  the  Church.  But  we 
have  a  right  to  point  to  the  fact  that  the  Historic  Episcopate 
has  been  the  subject  of  a  continuous  development.  The  Epis- 
copate in  the  time  of  Ignatius  or  Irena^us  was  not  identical  with 
the  Episcopate  of  Ambrose ;  the  Episcopate  of  Ambrose  was 
different  from  that  of  the  bishops  in  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  and  the  Episcopate  in  the  Roman  Church  has  changed 
since  then.  The  Episcopate  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  is  historic  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  last 
term  in  a  long  development  from  the  original  institution  of  a 
Christian  ministry.  But  so  is  the  Episcopate  in  England,  and 
so  is  the  Roman  Episcopate,  and  so  is  the  Swedish  Episcopate, 
and  so  is  the  Episcopate  of  the  Moravian  Brethren ;  and  yet 
all  these  Episcopates  differ  each  one  from  every  other  of  them. 
This  is  not  a  matter  of  name  merely,  nor  simply  of  agents  of 
consecration,  but  of  function,  powers,  limitations,  qualifications. 
We  ask  not  merely  who  consecrated,  but  who  chose;  and  sug- 
gest that  under  various  constitutions  men  alike  called  bishops 
have  been  consecrated,  some  to  one  office,  some  to  another. 
This  fourth  proposition  therefore  needs  explanation.  If  it  pro- 
poses Episcopacy  as  a  convenient  method  of  government,  it  is 
worthy  of  consideration ;  if  it  asserts  it  as  a  necessity  because 
of  Divine  institution,  then  the  bishops  must  make  good  their 
claim  out  of  Holy  Scripture  against  the  conviction  of  the  vast 
majority  of  their  fellow  Protestants  and  the  equal  but  inconsist- 
ent claim  of  Rome. 

I  think  I  have  made  plain  how  far  the  proposed  Basis  is 
from  satisfying  me ;  but  I  would  not  have  taken  the  trouble  to 
do  so  if  it  were  not  for  my  hearty  sympathy  with  this  attempt 
on  the  part  of  the  bishops,  and  with  the  object  they  have  in 
view.  The  divisions  of  the  Church  arc  a  hindrance  and  a  scan- 
dal. To  separate  from  our  fellow  Christians  without  warrant 
of  Holy  Scripture  is  a  crime.  And  in  this  country  especially, 
in  proportion  as  a  new  nationality  is  being  evolved  out  of  all 
the  elements  of  our  Commonwealth,  the  hope  of  unity  is  grow- 

6 


82  The  Church  Review. 

ing.  Some  one  had  to  take  the  first  step ;  and  the  House  of 
Bishops  in  taking  it  have  shown  a  worthy  conception  of  their 
office.  And  they  are  right  in  proposing  that  there  must  first 
of  all  be  an  agreement  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments.  If  such  agreement 
can  be  secured,  we  may  let  the  rest  take  care  of  itself.  I  do 
not  understand  that  this  basis  is  intended  to  be  an  ultimatum. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  see  that  it  is  already  undergoing  modi- 
fication. It  should  be  studied,  and  the  Commission  on  Unity 
should  tell  the  meaning  of  each  of  their  propositions.  And  I 
hope  that  the  discussion  and  conference  may  continue  until 
all  shall  be  led  to  see  what  is  the  Faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,  and  to  be  ashamed  of  that  which  they  hold  without 
warrant  of  Scripture,  and  contrary  to  the  law  of  love. 

Edward  T.  Horn. 


The  Rev.  Robert  S.  Mac  Arthur,  D.D.  [Baptist],  New 

York. 

THE  Basis  of  Christian  Reunion  proposed  by  the  Lambeth 
Conference  in  1888  is  worthy  of  the  careful  consideration 
of  all  bodies  of  Christians.  The  principles  formulated  by  that 
Conference  no  doubt  received  the  prolonged  consideration  of 
men  eminent  for  learning  and  character.  That  there  is  now  a 
desire  for  closer  union  among  difTerent  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians, no  one  familiar  with  the  facts  can  for  a  moment  doubt. 
And  that  such  a  reunion  is  desirable,  provided  it  can  be  secured 
in  harmony  with  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  teaching  of 
God's  Word,  no  one  will  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  admit.  We 
ought  not,  however,  to  depreciate  the  essential  unity  which  now 
exists. 

Essential  unity  may  exist  even  where  organic  unity  is  wanting. 
As  matters  now  are,  organic  unity  is  neither  feasible  nor  de- 
sirable ;  but  a  fuller  co-operation  among  Christians  of  every 
name  for  the  salvation  of  souls  and  for  the  glory  of  God  is  both 
possible  and  desirable.  Whatever  will  contribute  toward  se- 
curing this  result  is  to  be  esteemed  of  value  in  all  discussions 
on  this  general  subject.  Dififerent  denominations  have  made 
official  responses  to  various  overtures  looking  to  this  result. 
This  writer  does  not  presume  to  represent  his  denomination  by 


Christ ian  Rciniion.  83 

any  formal  appointment,  but  he  heartily  behevcs  that  he  will  not 
seriously  misrepresent  it  in  what  he  may  say  on  this  subject. 

I.  The  first  statement  made  by  this  Conference,  as  to  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, is  one  w^iich  most  Baptists  would  like  to  recast  so  as  to 
make  it  more  authoritative  than  as  given  by  this  Conference. 
The  Scriptures  are  not  to  be  simply  the  "  ultimate  standard  of 
Faith,"  but  the  only  rule  of  Faith  and  Practice.  We  must  have 
an  infallible  authority  in  all  matters  of  religious  faith.  VVc  repu- 
diate the  figment  of  an  infallible  man,  but  we  rejoice  in  accept- 
ing the  authority  of  this  infallible  Book.  The  Word  of  GoD  is 
to  be  regarded  as  the  clearest  revelation  of  the  will  of  GOD 
which  men  have  received.  To  that  Word  we  are  to  bow  with 
unquestioning  submission;  what  it  clearly  utters  we  unquestion- 
ingly  believe;  when  it  commands  us  to  go  forward,  we  joyfully 
obey.  When  the  Bible  speaks,  we  may  not  be  silent;  when  it 
is  silent,  we  may  not  speak.  More  and  more  must  the  Word  of 
God  be  exalted  as  the  only  rule  of  Faith  and  Practice  in  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Whatever  comes  between  the  believing 
heart  and  the  authoritative  Word  of  GOD  is  to  be  doubtfully 
received  or  entirely  rejected.  Creeds  made  by  men  are  not 
authoritative  standards.  To  the  authority  of  God's  Word  three 
millions  of  members  of  Baptist  Churches  in  these  United  States, 
and  six  millions  of  adherents  to  Baptist  Churches,  most  joy- 
fully submit.  The  famous  dictum  of  Chillingworth  is  to  be 
emphasized,  —  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  only,  the  religion  of 
Protestants.  Unfortunately  many  Protestants  do  not  so  regard 
the  Word  of  GOD.  They  give  tradition  and  churchianity  an 
authority  which  tends  to  displace  the  Word  of  GOD  as  the  only 
rule  of  Faith  and  Practice. 

2.  The  so-called  Apostles'  Creed  is  an  early  summary  of 
the  Christian  Faith,  with  most  of  whose  statements  Baptists  are 
heartily  agreed.  We  fully  appreciate  the  high  praise  which 
Augustine  gives  it  when  he  says  regarding  \\.,  Rcgula  fidci  brcvis 
et  grandis  ;  brevis  niimero  verboriun^  grandis  pondcre  sentcritia' 
ruin.  We  highly  esteem  it  as  a  compendium  of  doctrine,  for 
its  intrinsic  worth  and  for  the  veneration  in  which  it  has  been 
so  long  and  so  deservedly  held  by  many  bodies  of  Christians. 
We  can  almost  agree  with  Dr.  Schaft'when  he  says  that  though 
it  Is  "  not  In  form  the  production  of  the  Apostles,  it  is  a  faith- 
ful compend   of  their  doctrines,  and  comprehends  the  leading 


84  The  Church  Review. 

articles  of  the  Faith  in  the  triune  GoD  and  His  revelation, 
from  the  creation  to  the  life  everlasting,  in  sublime  simplicity, 
in  unsurpassable  brevity,  in  the  most  beautiful  order,  and  with 
liturgical  solemnity;  and  to  this  day  it  is  the  common  bond 
of  Greek,  Roman,  and  Evangelical  Christendom."  We  object, 
however,  to  its  title.  It  is  not,  in  any  natural  sense  of  the  word, 
the^Apostles'  Creed.  This  title  is  an  example  of  what  has  been 
called  "  a  pious  fraud."  All  investigators  now  heartily  agree 
that  the  so-called  Athanasian  Creed  was  not  the  work  of  the 
famous  Athanasius,  although  it  bears  his  name.  Dr.  Swainson 
does  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  the  origin  of  this  title  to  a  deliberate 
purpose  to  practise  an  imposition.  He  classifies  this  purpose 
with  that  which  led  to  the  "  False  Decretals,"  and  the  "  Donation 
of  Constantine."  The  Apostles  never  saw  the  Creed  to  which 
their  name  is  attached ;  they  never  heard  of  it,  and  perhaps 
would  not  be  willing  to  indorse  it  in  all  its  parts  as  we  now 
have  it.  It  may  be  said  that  the  title  is  now  used  with  the  under- 
standing that  it  is  simply  a  truthful  compend  of  Apostolic  doc- 
trine ;  that  it  sets  forth  Apostolic  principles  of  faith  in  GoD  and 
in  His  revelation.  But  the  title  was  intended  to  convey  quite 
a  different  meaning ;  it  was  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  which 
■the  Roman  Catholic  Church  now  clearly  teaches,  that  its  clauses 
were  actually  contributed  by  the  Apostles.  This  Church,  on 
the  authority  of  what  is  known  now  to  be  a  spurious  sermon 
of  Augustine,  undertakes  to  name  the  clauses  given  by  the 
different  Apostles.  To  the  historical  compiler  and  tradition- 
alist Rufinus  of  the  fourth  century,  we  are  indebted  for  the 
earliest  accounts  of  the  origin  of  this  creed.  He  affirmed  that 
the  Apostles,  before  separating  to  the  different  nations,  agreed 
upon  "  a  form  of  sound  words,"  and  that  when  met  together 
they  composed  this  compend  under  the  special  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  But  no  careful  historic  student  attaches  impor- 
tance to-day  to  this  testimony  of  Rufinus.  There  may  have 
been,  there  doubtless  were,  various  formulas  of  belief  in  exist- 
ence from  the  earliest  times ;  but  no  one  can  prove  that  the 
Apostles'  Creed  is  so  ancient  by  from  four  hundred  to  five 
hundred  years.  The  most  that  can  be  claimed  for  the  title  is 
that  it  fairly  represents  the  facts  of  Christian  Faith  as  taught 
by  the  Apostles.  We  also  know  well  that  the  clauses  relating 
to  the  descent  into  hell,  and  to  the  communion  of  saints,  are 
of  later  origin  than  are  the  other  portions  of  this  creed.      It 


Christian  Reunion.  85 

may  be  affirmed  that  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed  was  sub- 
stantially in  existence  from  the  end  of  the  fourth  century;  but 
in  its  completed  form  some  authorities  teach  that  it  cannot  be 
traced  to  a  period  earlier  than  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century.  If  this  statement  be  correct,  then  it  is  about  four 
centuries  later  in  its  present  form  than  the  earh'er  f(jrms  rjf 
the  Nicene  Creed.  The  clause,  "  He  descended  into  hell,"  is 
one  whose  origin  is  involved  in  great  doubt,  and  whose  teach- 
ing is  not  accepted  by  many  devout  believers  and  profound 
scholars.  We  know  that  an  alternative  form  is  suggested,  and 
if  that  form  were  universally  adopted,  fewer  critioisms  would  be 
pronounced  upon  this  ancient  and  confessedly  beautiful  com- 
pend  of  doctrine. 

To  the  Nicene  Creed  more  serious  objection  may  be  offered. 
The  circumstances  of  its  origin  tend  greatly  to  lessen  the  au- 
thority of  its  statements.  We  know  that  the  controversies  which 
began  in  the  second  century  were  prolonged  into  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries  under  various  phrases  of  belief  and  statement. 
This  creed  sprang  out  of  the  heart  of  this  long  and  troublous 
conflict;  itjwas  literally  a  compromise,  and  it  is  to  be  received 
only  as  such.  In  the  Council  held  in  325  at  Nicaea,  summoned 
by  Constantine,  there  were  three  distinct  parties,  —  the  Atha- 
nasian,  the  Eusebian,  and  the  Arian.  The  Arian,  or  heretical 
party  was  comparatively  few  in  numbers,  and  its  direct  influ- 
ence was  not  great  at  any  time  in  the  Council ;  but  its  indirect 
influence  through  the  Eusebian,  or  middle  party  was  marked 
at  every  stage  of  the  discussion.  For  a  time  this  middle  party 
was  able  to  hold  the  orthodox,  or  Athanasian  party  with  a  firm 
grasp.  We  all  admit  that  there  was  much  that  was  grand  and 
imposing  in  the  Nicene  Council.  No  Church  council  so  im- 
posing had  met  previous  to  that  time,  and  perhaps  few  of  like 
character  have  met  since.  But  we  know  also  that  at  times  this 
Council  conducted  itself  in  a  manner  altogether  unbecoming  a 
solemn  assembly  of  Christian  men  met  for  a  high  and  holy 
purpose.  Drafts  of  creeds  were  torn  in  pieces  by  the  excited 
assembly,  and  the  '*  lord  of  misrule  "  reigned  occasionally  with 
uninterrupted  sway.  The  Council  was  at  times  more  like  a 
ward  caucus  of  average  politicians  than  like  a  council  of  grave 
and  reverent  men. 

It  is  also  to  be  said  that  the  Nicene  Creed  does  not  now 
appear  in  its  original  form ;   and  the  history  of  many  of  its  later 


86  The  Church  Review. 

clauses  is  involved  in  great  obscurity.  Whether  they  are  to 
be  attributed  to  the  Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan  Council  is  not 
generally  known  even  by  the  most  careful  investigators.  Some 
affirm  that  the  enlarged  creed  appears  in  a  work  written  before 
the  meeting  of  this  latter  Council.  The  exact  facts  probably 
never  will  be  known.  It  must  be  admitted  also  that  these 
creeds  are  not  to  any  great  degree  conservators  of  doctrine ; 
they  are  often  divisive  rather  than  unitive.  The  Nicene  Creed 
did  not  stop  the  sway  of  Arianism  even  at  the  time ;  it  magni- 
fied, and  in  a  certain  sense  dignified,  Arianism,  and  led,  for  a 
time  at  least,  to  its  more  rapid  spread.  Creeds  are  not  con- 
servative of  doctrine  in  England  or  America  to-day.  The 
Churches  whose  creeds  are  longest  and  strongest  differ  more 
among  themselves  as  to  their  Faith  and  Practice  than  do 
Churches  in  which  there  is  no  creed,  in  the  technical  sense  of 
that  term.  This  is  not  the  expression  of  an  opinion ;  it  is  not 
the  formulation  of  an  argument;  it  is  simply  the  statement 
of  an  historic  fact.  The  Nicene  Creed,  moreover,  is  in  some 
of  its  parts  too  abstruse,  too  metaphysical  and  philosophical, 
for  general  adoption.  It  is  difficult  for  any  man  to  give  a  clear 
interpretation  of  some  of  its  expressions.  There  may  be  doubt 
as  to  whether  the  forms  in  which  it  appears  in  English  prop- 
erly represent  the  thought  of  the  original ;  but  the  interpreta- 
tion, after  a  true  translation  has  been  made,  is  much  more 
difficult  than  the  translation  itself.  It  would  puzzle  any  teacher 
of  religion  to  make  a  statement  of  some  clauses  in  this  creed 
which  would  be  intelligible  to  the  minds  of  immature  thinkers 
and  inexperienced  believers,  or  even  to  those  of  maturity  and 
experience.  That  creeds  have  their  use,  we  do  not  for  a  mo- 
ment deny ;  that  they  should  be  thrust  between  the  Christian 
and  his  Bible,  we  do  not  for  a  moment  believe.  Whatever 
tends  to  dethrone  and  to  displace,  or  to  disparage,  the  Word  of 
God  is  so  far  to  be  rejected.  We  are  unable  to  see  the  advan- 
tage of  emphasizing  the  value  of  elaborate  creeds.  We  cannot 
discover  their  practical  use  in  Christian  life  and  work,  and  we 
know  that  in  many  instances  they  have  divided  the  Church, 
when  a  simpler  statement  of  God's  Word  would  have  united 
God's  people.  It  is  often  much  more  difficult  to  interpret  the 
creeds  than  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  on  which  their  state- 
ments are  supposed  to  be  based.  We  therefore  favor  the  reten- 
tion of  God's  Word,  and  that  alone,  as  the  only  rule  of  the 


Christian  Rcunicn.  87 

Faith  and  Practice  of  the  Church ;  but  we  do  not  object  to  a 
brief,  simple  statement  of  its  fundamental  truths,  expressed,  for 
the  most  part,  in  its  own  words. 

3.  To  this  statement  we  have  no  special  objection  to  offer. 
The  term  "  sacrament  "  wc  do  not  use  and  do  not  indorse.  It 
is  not  a  Scriptural  term.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
use  a  Scriptural  term  when  one  is  given  us  which  is  more 
appropriate  than  is  this  term.  VVe  believe  that  the  Word  of 
God  clearly  teaches  that  the  only  subjects  of  baptism  are  be- 
lievers, and  that  the  act  of  baptism  is  properly  described  in  the 
language  of  the  Apostle  Paul  when  he  says,  "  Buried  with  Ilim 
in  baptism;"  and  in  this  belief  we  have  the  support,  in  large 
part,  of  the  best  scholarship  of  the  world.  The  term  "  sacra- 
ment," both  as  to  its  origin  and  its  associations,  we  reject.  That 
the  ordinances  of  the  Lord'S  house  should  be  "  ministered  with 
unfailing  use  of  CHRIST'S  words  of  institution,"  we  heartily  be- 
lieve. We  strive  so  to  minister  these  ordinances,  and  are  ready 
to  accept  this  statement  as  the  manner  in  which  the  ordinances 
are  to  be  observed. 

4.  The  expression  "  Historic  Episcopate "  is  one  which  is 
perhaps  capable  of  several  distinct  meanings.  In  some  of  the 
senses  in  w^hich  it  might  be  used,  and  in  the  one  in  which  it  was 
probably  used  by  the  Lambeth  Conference,  w^e  cannot  agree. 
If  there  is  in  the  expression  an  implication  of  the  so-called 
Apostolic  succession,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  refuse  our  indorse- 
ment. If  we  were  permitted  to  interpret  the  expression,  we 
might  give  it  our  adherence.  That  the  Apostles  had  or  could 
have  successors,  strictly  speaking,  we  wholly  deny.  With  Dr. 
G.  A.  Jacob,  late  Head-Master  of  Christ's  Hospital,  and  the 
author  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity  of  the  New  Testament,  when 
he  says,  '*  The  Apostles  had  no  successors  in  their  office ;  they 
stand  alone  as  the  Divinely  inspired  teachers,  legislators,  and 
rulers  in  Christ's  Church  and  Kingdom,"  we  heartily  agree. 
In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  they  could  not  have  successors. 
The  Word  of  God  does  not  indorse  the  sense  in  which  the  word 
**  bishop"  is  now  used  by  some  bodies  of  Christians.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  New  Testament  is  so  clear  as  scarcely  to  admit 
of  intelligent  differences  of  opinion.  It  is  not  possible  that 
the  great  majority  of  believers  could  accept  the  **  Historic  Epis- 
copate," as  the  term  is  ordinarily  understood,  as  a  basis  of  unity 
in  the  Church  of  jESUS  CHRIST. 


SS  The  Church  Review, 

On  the  whole  subject  of  Christian  unity,  four  propositions 
may  be  laid  down,  which  if  accepted  would  greatly  help  to 
solve   the   perplexing  problems   involved. 

1.  The  Word  of  GoD  must  be  recognized  as  the  only  rule 
of  Faith  and  Practice.  We  have  already  enlarged  upon  this 
thought  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  article. 

2.  No    denomination    has    a    right   to   a   separate   existence, 
except   it  represents  and  teaches   some   important  doctrine  or 
doctrines    of  the   Word    of  GOD   which    other    denominations 
either  oppose,  reject,  or  inadequately  present.     Surely  that  is 
a'^reasonable    proposition.     No    denomination   has    a   right   to 
exist  as    such,    if  it   has    no  distinctive   truth  to  teach  to  the 
world ;   no  right  to  exist  merely  to  gratify  the  personal  vanity 
of  its  supporters,  or  to  furnish  a  vocation  for  its  preachers ;   no 
right  merely  to    maintain  a  tradition,  however   honorable  and 
venerable.     The  question  must  be  asked  regarding  any  Church, 
What  truth  has  this  organization  to  give  us  which  other  bodies 
of  Christians  do  not  teach?     That  is  a  fair  question;   to  it  each 
denomination,  with  the  Word  of  GOD  as  its  authority,  ought  to 
give  an   intelligent  reply.     The  true  Apostolic  Church  is  that 
Church    which    best  illustrates  the  spirit  and  the  teachings  of 
the  Apostles,  —  that  Church  whose  ordinances  and  worship  most 
fully  harmonize  with  the  teaching  and  example  of  the  Apostles. 
Why  waste  the   Lord's  money   in  maintaining  a  separate  or- 
ganization  for   home    and    foreign    mission   w^ork,    except   the 
particular  body  have   a  truth  to  teach  which   other  Churches 
are  not  presenting  to  the  world?     It  is  fair  to  ask  regarding 
some    Churches   this    question.    What   truth    of    God's   Word 
w^ould  perish  from  the  earth  if  these  Churches  should  cease  to 
exist  as  separate  bodies?     In  regard  to  some  organizations  it 
must  be  said  that  the  echo  of  the  questioner's  voice  will  be  the 
only  answer  to  his  question.     Why,  then,  should  such  organiza- 
tions be  maintained?     Why  should  not  the  advocates  of  organic 
Christian   union  give  their   attention    at   once   to   this    matter? 
Why    might    not    some    of    them    immediately    illustrate    their 
preaching  by  merging  themselves  and  their  Churches  into  other 
Christian   bodies,    which    teach,    in    all    essential    respects,    the 
doctrines    which    their    own    Church   teaches?     If  we  honestly 
apply  this  rule  we  shall   certainly  eliminate  several  denomina- 
tions.    The  question  is,  are  these  principles  sound,  and  if  so, 
ought  they  not  to  be  applied  in  the  interest  of  a  true  economy 


Christian  Rctinion,  89 

in  the  conduct  of  the  Lord's  work,  and  also  in  llie  interest  of 
a  wholesome  Christian  union? 

3.  Akin  to  this  proposition  is  another:  Ori^anic  unicm 
ought  first  to  be  effected  among  all  the  wings  and  branches  of 
each  denomination  itself.  When  that  has  been  accomplished, 
that  denomination  can  consistently  and  effectively  urge  organic 
union  among  the  various  bodies  differing  much  more  widely  in 
name,  in  Faith,  and  in  forms  of  worship.  There  are  Free-will 
Baptists  and  llyper-Calvinistic,  Anti-Missionary  and  "  Omis- 
sionary "  Baptists,  Seventh  Day  Baptists  and  several  other 
wings  and  branches  bearing  some  form  of  the  denomination's 
name.  Regular  Baptists  feel  that  they  ought,  if  possible,  to 
secure  union  among  some  of  these  divisions  and  subdivisions. 
In  the  case  of  some,  such  union  is  probably  impossible.  We 
ought  to  begin  near  home,  and  later  we  could  consistently 
urge  bodies  differing  more  widely  to  come  into  a  closer 
union. 

Similar  remarks  will  apply  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
distinctions  between  Old  School  and  New  School  have  at  least 
nominally  passed  away.  Traces,  however,  of  former  divisions 
still  remain ;  but  there  are  yet  many  branches  of  the  one 
Presbyterian  Church.  There  are  United  Presbyterians,  Cum- 
berland Presbyterians,  Covenanter  and  several  other  divisions 
of  the  one  body.  Some  of  these  divisions  are  again  subdivided  ; 
and  some  of  the  subdivisions  are  again  subdivided.  If  one  were 
to  speak  of  the  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church  in  this  connection, 
the  argument  would  be  greatly  strengthened.  It  would  seem 
as  if  all  these  bodies  which  are  Presbyterian  in  government,  and 
which  differ  so  little  in  faith  and  practice,  might  be  brought 
into  one  great  Pan-Presbyterian  Church.  There  are  also  va- 
rious bodies  of  Christians  bearing  the  name  "  Methodist."  We 
have  Episcopal  Methodists,  Wesleyan  Methodists,  Calvinistic 
Methodists,  and  Protestant  Methodists ;  and  some  of  these  divi- 
sions are  also  subdivided  again  and  again.  Let  us  have  a  great 
Pan-Methodists'  organization,  and  then  Methodism  shall  be 
able  more  effectively  to  make  its  appeal  to  other  bodies  not 
bearing  its  distinctive  name.  Congregationalists  also  have 
different  wings.  The  line  of  cleavage  may  not  be  so  marked  by 
a  separate  terminology  as  it  is  by  differences  in  Faith  and  Prac- 
tice which  cannot  well  be  formulated  into  differences  in  no- 
menclature.    These    differences,    however,  are   real;    they   are 


90  The  Church  Review. 

manifesting  themselves  in  theological  schools,  in  home  mission 
work,  and  especially  in  the  Board  for  foreign  mission  work. 
When  we  come  to  speak  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  we 
have  many  illustrations  of  the  necessity  which  there  is  of  such  a 
denominational  unity  as  is  here  advocated.  There  are  in  this 
body  wide  differences,  wider  probably  than  in  other  denomi- 
nations, in  the  essential  spirit  of  different  Churches,  although 
there  is  outward  unity.  There  is  the  High  Church,  and  there  is 
the  Low  Church  and  the  Broad  Church.  There  are  Reformed 
Episcopalians  and,  in  the  opinion  of  those  at  least,  presumably 
un-Reformed  Episcopalians.  There  ought  to  be  a  Pan-Epis- 
copal Church,  which  might  perhaps  include  our  Methodist 
friends  so  far  as  the  term  "Episcopal"  is  concerned,  before 
the  most  effective  form  of  appeal  can  be  made  for  organic 
unity  to  those  outside  the  Episcopal  fold.  We  trust  the 
effort  toward  a  more  permanent  unity  will  be  begun  along 
all  these  denominational  lines. 

4.  We  venture  to  suggest  another  proposition.  No  form 
of  organic  union  is  to  be  advocated  which  gives  to  any 
Church  the  right  to  appropriate  for  itself  such  ecclesiastical 
titles,  or  to  employ  such  historical  assumptions,  as  practically 
to  unchurch  all  other  bodies  of  Christians.  No  titles  should  be 
used  by  any  Church  except  such  as  are  clearly  given  in  the 
Word  of  God,  and  they  are  to  be  adopted  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  are  used,  according  to  the  conclusions  of  the  best  scholar- 
ship in  the  Word  of  GOD.  The  assumptions  which  are  here 
condemned  are  great  barriers  to  Christian  union.  They  some- 
times simply  excite  laughter;  they  occasionally  justify  whole- 
some indignation.  No  officials  in  any  Church  are  justified  in 
appropriating  to  themselves  titles  implying  appointment  by 
authority  over  all  Christians  in  a  town,  city,  or  State.  Such 
assumptions  are  as  unfraternal  as  they  are  un-Scriptural.  No 
man  has  a  right  to  claim  for  himself  a  title  which  has  never 
been  bestowed  by  those  whose  bestowment  alone  could  justify 
him  in  its  use.  No  union  among  denominations,  which  is 
simply  absorption  of  one  into  another,  except  in  the  case  of 
denominations  which  have  no  distinctive  truth  to  teach,  as  we 
have  already  suggested,  is  to  be  commended.  The  question  of 
legal  and  personal  rights  immediately  obtrudes  itself  at  these 
points.  The  lion  said  to  the  lamb,  **  Let  us  be  one,  and  lie 
down  together."     The  union  was  speedily  effected,  but  when 


Christ iaii  Reunion.  oi 

the  attitude  of  recumbency  was  secured,  the  relative  positions 
of  lion  and  lamb  it  is  easy  to  understand.  Such  a  relation- 
ship is  not  Christian  uni(Mi;  it  is  simply  absorption  of  (jne 
body  into  another  without  any  real  advantage  to  the  cause  of 
Christ  as  a  whole.  There  must  be  fraternal  consideration, 
there  must  be  regard  for  the  rights  of  all,  in  any  attempt  to 
unite  the  different  denominations  into  one  great  whole.  The 
assumptions  which  we  here  condemn  are  a  great  barrier  to 
Christian  union. 

We  have  not  advocated  organic  union;  but  we  rejoice  in  all 
forms  of  co-operation,  and  in  some  forms  of  federation.  But  it 
is  quite  certain  that  if  there  is  to  be  any  form  of  organic  union, 
it  must  begin  at  the  baptistery.  Every  denomination  in  Protes- 
tant Christendom,  and  in  the  entire  Roman  and  Greek  Churches, 
can  agree  upon  baptism,  as  taught  by  our  LORD  and  His 
Apostles.  The  Greek  Church,  numbering  eighty  to  ninety 
millions  of  adherents,  has  ever  been  a  stout  witness  on  behalf 
of  baptism.  The  Roman  Church  joyfully  accepts  it,  and  all 
the  Protestant  Churches  join  hands  with  these  two  great  bodies. 
On  no  substitute  for  baptism  can  all  the  denominations  agree. 
We  are  not  now  arguing  a  point;  we  are  simply  stating  an  in- 
controvertible fact.  Do  men  really  want  organic  Christian 
union?  Are  they  in  earnest  when  they  proclaim  this  desire? 
Are  they  willing  to  follow  CHRIST  into  the  waters  of  baptism? 
Are  they  willing  to  join  hands  with  their  brethren  in  all  cen- 
turies and  in  all  climes?  Here  is  the  opportunity;  here  is 
the  truly  Apostolic  and  Catholic  ordinance.  If  they  will  but 
follow  Apostolic  injunction  and  example,  then  all  can  say, 
"  We  are  buried  \Vith  Him  by  baptism  unto  death."  And 
then  there  may  be,  if  it  is  desired,  organic  union  without  doing 
violence  to  the  convictions  of  any,  and  in  acknowledged  har- 
mony with  the  Word  of  GOD  and  its  recognized  interpretations. 
We  are  not  arguing  for  an  organic  union  of  all  the  denomina- 
tions as  matters  now  are;  we  are  simply  stating  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  clearly  possible.  We  could  quote  the  most  learned 
authorities  of  many  faiths  and  countries  and  centuries  in  favor  of 
this  position.  On  but  {q.\w  points  is  the  scholarship  of  the  world 
so  nearly  a  unit  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
''  baptism,"  and  as  to  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and  the  early 
Church.  It  would  be  easy  to  fill  pages  with  the  names  of  learned 
authorities  on  all  these  points ;   and  the  simple-minded  disciple 


92  The  Church  Review, 

of  the  Lord  Jesus,  with  no  guide  but  the  New  Testament, 
comes  to  the  same  conclusion.  May  the  HoLY  Spirit  lead  all 
believers  into  all  truth ! 

R.  S.  MacArthur. 


Professor  William  J.  Mann,  D.D.  [Lutheran], 
Philadelphia. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  :  — 

THE  Faculty  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  at  Mount  Airy  requested  me  to  answer  the  invita- 
tion extended  in  your  favor  of  March  22,  1890,  to  the  Rev. 
C.  W.  Schaeffer,  D.D.  LL.D.,  Chairman  of  the  Faculty.  My 
answer  m.akes  no  claim  to  express  the  sentiments  of  the  Fac- 
ulty, or  of  any  portion  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  it  is 
to  be  taken  as  the  opinion  of  an  individual  member  of  that 
Communion. 

I  feel  myself  considerably  embarrassed  by  the  want  of  a  def- 
inite conception  of  the  object  in  view  ;  namely,  the  reunion  of  the 
Church.  Certainly,  all  Christians  feel  that  the  disunited  condi- 
tion of  Christendom,  as  we  witness  it,  does  not  correspond  with 
that  conception  of  the  "  communion  of  saints  "  which  was  in 
the  mind  of  its  Divine  Author,  but  is  in  glaring  contradiction  to 
the  fundamental  ideas  of  Christianity  as  a  system  of  religious 
and  ethical  principles,  and  to  a  large  extent  prevents  Christian- 
ity from  executing  its  mission,  and  from  conveying  to  mankind 
its  intended  blessings.  No  enlightened  Christian  can  therefore 
be  indifferent  toward  a  movement  coming,  from  so  respected 
and  influential  an  assembly  as  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  the 
Anglican  Church,  that  has  in  view  the  extinction  of  evils  inher- 
ent in  the  present  condition,  and  that  may  serve  better  to  enable 
our  sacred  religion  to  spread  its  blessings  upon  the  world. 

Examining  that  **  Basis  for  Reunion  "  laid  before  me,  I  con- 
fess that  its  very  broadness,  its  apparent  liberality,  is  to  me  em- 
barrassing. I  agree  to  this,  that  the  canonical  writings  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  shall  be  the  exclusive  rule  by  which 
all  teachers  and  all  teachings  shall  be  tested. 

Of  course,  to  apply  this  principle,  it  needs  a  certain  unanimity 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  canonical 
writings  to  make  it  a  practical  rule.     Certainly  I  acknowledge 


Christian  Rcunio7i.  93 

the  Apostles'  and  the  Niccnc  Creeds  as  statements  of  the  fup.da- 
mcntTil  principles  of  the  Christian  religion.  If  the  task  would 
consist  simply  in  stating  the  points  wherein  Christianity  differs 
from  heathenism  or  from  Gnostic  and  Arian  errors,  I  would  say 
these  two  creeds  are  "  sufficient,"  and  would  not  object  to  add- 
ing the  Athanasian  Creed,  in  spite  of  its  scholastic  treatment  of 
the  Trinitarian  dogma. 

The  Church  catholic  was  in  those  times  necessitated  to  guard 
the  true  doctrine  against  certain  errors,  then  endangering  the 
existence  and  the  character  of  Christianity.  Other  errors  of 
various  forms  arose  since  then  from  time  to  time,  and  made  in- 
roads into  the  Body  of  CHRIST,  sickening  it  and  endangering 
its  very  life.  Against  these  errors  those  Ecumenical  Symbols 
offer  no  declaration  and  no  guard,  and  to  supplement  this  defect 
by  "adding  (No.  3)  the  two  sacraments,  not  only  leaves  the  very 
important  sacramental  question,  which  more  than  any  other 
divided  Protestantism,  unsolved,  but  ignores  other  questions 
which  mere  ignoring  neither  solves  nor  removes.  To  use  in  the 
administrations  of  the  Lord's  Supper  "  CHRIST'S  words  of 
institution,"  will,  harmless  as  it  seems  to  be,  never  satisfy  mil- 
lions of  Lutherans,  since  they  know  that  under  this  form  here- 
sies affecting  Christology  and  hereby  the  very  centre  of  the 
Christian  system  of  savjng  truth,  have  crept  in  and  are  retained, 
and  since  they  consider  the  celebration  of  the  Sacrament  also 
an  act  and  an  occasion  of  professing  their  religious  conviction. 
A  unanimous  testimony  given  by  a  very  large  part  of  Evangel- 
ical Christendom  against  errors  affecting  faith  and  life  in  our  age 
might  have  weight  with  many,  and  prove  that  the  Church  not 
only  rests  on  the  achievements  of  bygone  ages  and  repeats  their 
formulas,  but  stands  up  with  striking  unanimity  to-day,  warning 
against  errors  opposing  Divinely  revealed  truth,  destructive  to 
the  Church,  and  poisoning  individuals,  families,  and  society. 
A  mere  attempt  to  prove  that  on  some  points  various  Christian 
denominations  of  the  present  generation  are  identified  with  the 
venerable  relics  of  the  past,  while  on  those  errors,  which  now 
powerfully  oppose  the  truth  as  it  is  in  CiIRIST,  and  undermine 
the  foundations  of  Christian  life,  an  ominous  silence  is  kept, 
only  reveals  the  weakness  of  the  Church  and  its  inabiHty  to 
counteract  the  dangers  of  the  times.  If  such  a  declaration  is 
impossible  or  inadmissible,  it  is  questionable  whether  any  other 
form  for  a  basis  of  reunion  will  promise  a  desirable  result. 


/ 


94  The  Church  Review, 

It  is  dear  that  any  reunion  on  the  basis  of  the  one  proposed 
by  the  Lambeth  Conference  would  be  a  union  intended  to  cover 
the  differences  existing.  It  would  be  an  agreement  to  disagree. 
In  every  effort  of  such  a  character  the  seed  of  discord  and  dis- 
union is  inherent.  There  is  in  it  a  sort  of  charity  at  the  expense 
of  honesty;  and  in  this  case  it  amounts  to  a  supprcssio  veri, 
which  nowhere  is  more  to  be  avoided  than  in  matters  of  con- 
science and  religion. 

In  No.  4  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  propositions,  mention  is 
made  of  the  "■  Historic  Episcopate,"  and  it  is  presented  as  an 
integral  part  of  the  **  Basis  for  Reunion."  It  stands  to  reason 
that  those  who  would  unite  on  this  basis  would  have  to  come 
in  under  this  conditio  sine  qua  nan,  and  to  retain  or  accept  the 
Episcopate  as  the  only  admissible  form  of  Christian  Church 
government. 

I,  as  a  Lutheran,  feel  no  repugnance  to  the  Episcopate  as  a 
principle  of  Church  government.  I  am  far  from  saying  that  the 
Episcopate  is  the  only  form  of  Church  government  admissible 
in  the  Christian  Church.  Denying  this  exclusive  right  of  the 
Episcopate,  I  refer  to  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  '*  as  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith."  Time- 
honored  as  the  Episcopate  is,  it  is  no  article  of  Faith.  It  Is  In 
God's  Word  nowhere  demanded  as  a  principle,  by  the  consent 
to  which  is  conditioned  fellowship  In  the  Christian  community. 
I  respect  it  as  a  historical  growth.  I  can  understand  why  It 
was  retained  In  the  Church  of  England  In  her  connection  with 
the  State  on  the  basis  of  Erastlanism,  and  the  aristocratic  ten- 
dencies of  the  ruhng  classes  of  England,  and  why  It  was  not 
retained  in  Scotland,  where  the  prevailing  elements  were  more 
tinged  with  democratic  procHvIties.  I  admit  willingly  that  there 
is  much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  the  Episcopate.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  I  cannot  forget  that  out  of  the  Episcopate  grew 
Papacy  and  many  concomitant  evils,  and  that  it  did  not  save 
the  Church  of  England  from  the  inroads  of  Armlnlanism,  the 
rising  within  her  of  Quakerism  and  Methodism,  and  the  dis- 
turbing influences  of  Puseyism  and  Ritualism.  In  the  United 
States  of  America  it  did  not  prevent  a  split  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  and  the  origin  of  a  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church.  These  historical  facts  establish  a  right  to  doubt  the 
wisdom  of  making  acceptance  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  an 
absolute  condition  of  entering  into  a  reunion  agreement. 


Christian  Reunion.  95 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  iindcr\'aluinf^  the  impor- 
tance of  the  organization  and  government  of  the  Churcli.  liut 
I  insist  on  this  point,  that  all  that  appertains  to  the  govern- 
mental question  is  of  secondary  concern.  We  are  not  saved  by 
any  form  of  Church  government,  but  by  faith  in  CilKisi",  by 
appropriating  His  merits  and  assimilating  His  personal  cjual- 
ities.  The  s^i'cat  end  of  Christ's  incarnation  is  not  the  Church, 
but  the  Kingdom  of  GOD,  the  liberation  of  man  from  the  do- 
minion of  the  world  and  the  acknowledgment  of  God's  ruling, 
and  submission  through  penitent  faith  to  His  will,  to  establish 
true  morality  as  the  common  task  of  the  human  race  and  the 
basis  of  true  happiness.  Thus  viewed,  GOD's  Kingdom  is  the 
highest  good,  and  the  Church,  with  all  that  appertains  to  it,  is 
the  indispensable  instrumentality  for  its  actualization.  To  iden- 
tify God's  Kingdom  and  the  Church  is  a  portentous  Roman 
error.  Starting  with  these  preliminaries,  I  say  that  the  question 
of  the  organization  and  government  of  the  Church  is  of  sec- 
ondary character,  as  I  cannot  maintain  that  the  efficacy  of  the 
functions  of  the  officers  of  the  Church  is  dependent  on  the  priv- 
ileged character  of  a  caste,  endowed  with  peculiar  supernatural 
powers.  This  none  of  the  venerable  men  assembled  at  Lam- 
beth would  claim  for  the  bishops.  Consequently,  the  question 
of  the  Episcopate  will  ultimately  be  settled  on  the  principle  of 
expediency,  as  it  originally  grew  out  of  it,  whereby  is  excluded 
its  absolute  and  unlimited  necessity.  It  is  with  a  view  to  this 
point  that  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  admitting  the 
claims  of  the  Episcopate  as  a  conditio  sine  qua  nan  for  the  ex- 
istence of  the  true  Church ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  misunderstood  as  ignoring  the  historic  basis  and  the 
venerable  character  of  the  Episcopate  and  of  the  organization 
of  the  Church  on  this  basis.  I  for  one  would  give  the  prefer- 
ence to  the  Historic  Episcopate  before  all  other  forms  of  Church 
government,  and  would,  with  proper  limitations  of  its  privileges 
and  rights,  to  which  the  Committee  of  the  Lambeth  Conference 
alludes  in  its  hnal  observation,  and  with  due  regard  for  local 
conditions  and  traditions,  advocate  its  adoption  where  it  can 
be  introduced  without  danger  to  equally  or  more  important 
interests. 

In  conclusion,  I  say  that  much  will  have  to  be  changed  in 
the  relation  now  existing  between  the  different  Church  parties, 
before  a  practical  result  of  reunion  movements  will  be  attained. 


96  The  Church  Review, 

That  each  claims  to  be  the  Church,  while  every  one  produces 
in  the  average  the  same  moral  and  social  result,  and  not  one  of 
them  all  stands  before  the  community  without  faults  and  blem- 
ishes,—  this  is  simply  calculated  to  mutually  irritate  and  gen- 
erally to  make  Christianity  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  the  world. 
The  zeal  often  manifested  to  make  proselytes  and  to  work  for  the 
increase  of  "  the  Church,"  is  not  always  unalloyed  love  of  GOD 
and  souls,  but  only  often  another  form  of  refined  egotism.  It 
is  a  pride,  contributive  to  the  ignorance  which  representatives 
of  various  denominations  frequently  reveal  concerning  the  con- 
dition, the  work,  and  the  merits  of  others,  and  of  the  contempt 
based  on  gross  ignorance  with  which  the  others  are  treated. 
Now,  this  is  not  Christian,  neither  is  it  expedient,  provided  we 
have  the  great  thought  of  reunion  at  heart  and  are  willing  with 
a  clear  conscience  to  work  in  this  direction. 

There  is  one  point  more,  to  which  I  may  be  permitted  to  al- 
lude, provided  I  do  not  encroach  too  much  upon  your  liberal- 
ity. There  are  so  very  few  symptoms  observable  which  might 
indicate  that  we  Protestants,  in  spite  of  all  existing  differences, 
have  in  common  a  certain  historical  origin,  and  form  a  practical 
antithesis  to  the  errors  of  Romanism,  without  which  antithesis 
our  right  of  existence  would  be  lost.  I  have  often  felt  that  it 
might  be  of  advantage  if  all  Protestants  would  unite  on  a  day 
commemorative  of  the  great  world-historic  fact  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, to  be  solemnly  and  religiously  celebrated  every  year.  I  do 
not  agree  with  many  positions  of  Romanism,  while  I  am  no 
enemy  of  the  Roman  Catholics.  But  viewing  their  wisdom  in 
showing  the  world  that  they  are  one  great  organization,  their 
zeal  to  make  progress  and  to  gain  influence  and  power,  I  think 
we  Evangelicals  are  but  too  remiss  in  strengthening  our  own 
religious  consciousness  on  the  basis  of  that  only  rule  of  faith 
and  life,  the  Word  of  GOD,  and  in  feeling  that  in  our  antithesis 
to  those  errors  which  crept  in  while  the  watchmen  slept,  and 
which  affect  the  corner-stone  of  our  salvation.  Justification  by 
Faith,  we  are  a  unit  and  are  willing  to  let  the  world  know  it. 

Dii  at  que  anhnam  salvavi. 

W.  J.  Mann. 


Christian  Rctcnion,  97 

Professor  E.  J.  Wolf,  D.D.  [Lutheran],  Theological 
Seminary,  Getiysburg,  Ta. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Revh:\v,  Snt : 

IN  your  kind  request  that  I  should  give  you  my  views  upon 
the  subject  of  Christian  Reunion  in  general,  and  state  how 
far  I  would  accept  this  "  Basis  on  which  approach  might  be, 
under  God'S  blessing,  made  toward  reunion,"  you  very  prop- 
erly serve  notice  that  each  writer  speaks  only  for  himself.  I 
accept  this  understanding.  Yet  in  discussing  the  acceptability 
of  the  bishops'  overtures  I  cannot  forget  that  this  basis  is  pro- 
posed by  the  highest  representatives  of  the  Episcopal  Church, 
nor  suppress  for  the  time  my  Lutheran  consciousness.  No  other 
two  Communions  have  in  doctrine  and  worship  so  much  in  common 
as  the  Episcopal  and  the  Lutheran.  For  proof  of  this,  one  need 
but  lay  the  XXXIX.  Articles  alongside  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  take  a  look  at  the  historic  liturgies  of  the  two  Churches. 
So  close  were  the  sympathy  and  the  intercourse  between  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Germany 
during  the  first  period  of  the  Reformation  *'  that  it  cannot  be 
doubted"  if  both  Churches  had  been  embraced  in  the  same  terri- 
tory, there  would  have  been  but  one  Communion,  and  that  with- 
out any  compromises.  It  has  been  recognized  also  by  Episcopal 
historians  that  if  the  bishops  of  Germany  had  joined  in  the  re- 
formatory movement,  and  if  the  English  bishops  had  united  in 
opposing  it,  the  German  Church  would  have  been  Episcopal,  and 
the  English  Church  would  have  been  non-Episcopal. 

This  affinity  made  itself  felt  in  the  early  history  of  this  coun- 
try. A  number  of  Episcopal  congregations  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Philadelphia  enjoyed  during  the  first  decades  of  the  eighteenth 
century  the  stated  ministrations  of  Lutheran  clergymen,  —  min- 
istrations which  they  eagerly  sought,  **  lest  their  children  would 
become  unchristened  heathen  or  Quakers,  and  their  Churches 
would  be  changed  into  stables  alongside  of  Quaker  meeting- 
houses." When,  on  the  other  hand,  a  later  generation  of  German 
Lutherans  demanded  English  preaching,  distinguished  pastors 
were  known  to  direct  them  to  the  Episcopal  Church  as  being 
properly  the  English  Lutheran  Church. 

Closely  as  these  great  historic  Churches  approach  each  other 
on  many  points,  nevertheless  the  very  terms  of  this  fraternal 

7 


98  The  Church  Review. 

overture  reveal  the  wide  chasm  which  separates  them.  It  lays 
down  as  fundamental  at  least  one  feature  which  the  Lutheran 
Church  has  always  regarded  as  an  adiaphoron,  while  it  passes  by 
among  other  things  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  Faith  alone, 
which  to  all  Lutherans  is  the  doctrine  of  a  standing  or  falling 
Church.  Lutherans  do  not  object  to  the  Historic  Episcopate  as 
an  administrative  institution.  They,  in  fact,  maintain  it  in  various 
countries.  The  Apostolic  legitimacy  of  the  Swedish  Episcopate 
is  no  more  disputed  than  is  that  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
if  this  institution  were  deemed  essential  to  the  government  of 
Christ's  Church,  or  believed  to  have  any  inspired  authority,  the 
Lutheran  clergy  and  congregations  of  this  country  could  readily 
avail  themselves  of  its  benefits.  But  holding  that  the  ministry  is 
simply  the  office  of  dispensing  the  Word  and  the  Sacraments, 
that  its  incumbents  have  an  essential  equality,  and  that  no  form 
of  Church  polity  is  of  Divine  right,  —  some  of  its  writers  even 
teaching  that  every  claim  to  a  Divinely  instituted  polity  is  es- 
sentially Romish,  believing  the  Scriptures  to  make  the  grace  of 
^  salvation  contingent  upon  naught  but  Word  and  Sacrament,  and 
beholding  in  history  the  fruits  of  a  pure  and  vigorous  Chris- 
tianity outside  the  domain  of  the  Historic  Episcopate,  —  the 
Lutheran  Church  would  have  to  repudiate  the  principles  under 
which  she  came  into  distinctive  being,  and  turn  her  back  upon 
■four^ centuries  signalized  by  the  presence  of  the  SPIRIT  within 
her  bosom,  before  she  could  accept  the  Historic  Episcopate  as 
indispensable  to  the  integrity  or  the  unity  of  the  One  Holy 
Christian  and  Apostolic  Church. 

That  it  is  a  very  ancient  institution  ;  that  it  has  often  rendered 
inestimable  service  to  the  Christian  cause  ;  that  it  has  been  made 
illustrious  by  the  ability  and  sanctity  of  many  of  its  representa- 
tives, —  no  historical  scholar  will  question.  But  if  it  must  be 
accepted  as  "  essential  to  the  restoration  of  unity  among  the 
divided  branches  of  Christendom,"  then  I  would  humbly  but 
firmly  say  it  were  far  better  to  have  these  divisions  continue, 
sad  and  reproachful  as  they  seem,  than  to  accord  a  Divine  right 
to  that  which,  so  far  as  GOD  enables  us  to  see,  is  lacking  the 
proper  credentials  for  such  a  claim.  The  truth  revealed  from 
heaven  is  of  greater  moment  to  mankind  than  any  human  insti- 
tution, however  beneficial,  and  the  moral  inabiHty  of  non-Epis- 
copalians to  abandon  what  they  have  always  held  to  be  the  truth 
on  this  subject,  is  fortified  by  the  admission  of  the  foremost  An- 


CIncrch  Rc2i7tion.  9q 

glican  scholars  that  the  Historic  I'Lpiscopatc  derives  no  supjx^rt 
from  the  Scriptures. 

According  to  the  teachings  of  such  expositors  as  Li.^jhtfoot, 
Hatch,  and  even  Phimmer,  on  the  origin  of  the  l^piscopate,  tjie 
fourth  proposition  of  the  bishops'  Basis,  with  all  deference  to  the 
disthiguished  prelates  who  formulated  it,  stands  in  manifest  con- 
flict  with  the  first,  namely,  "  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation 
and  being  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith."  This  is  the 
generic  principle  of  Protestantism,  its  raison  d'etre,  and  of  course 
must  forever  remain  the  first  condition  for  unity  among  the 
Protestant  Communions.  But  until  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy 
find  it  in  the  Scriptures,  the  acceptance  of  these  as  the  ultimate 
authority,  of  necessity  includes  the  rejection  of  Episcopacy  as  an 
essential.  The  converse  of  this  is  equally  true. 
•  Were  the  Scriptures  alone  a  sufficient  basis  for  union,  as  some 
fondly  dream,  the  consummation  so  devoutly  wished  need  be 
not  a  day  longer  delayed,  for  they  are  accepted  unconditionally 
by  every  division  of  the  Evangelical  Church.  But  itj^eing  by 
general  consent  indispensable  to  have  the  essentials  of  the  Chris- 
tian Faith  defined  and  formulated  in  exact  and  faithful  expres- 
si6n?,~I  cannot  see  how  Churches  concerned  for  the  purity  and 
completeness  of  Evangelical  truth  can  be  content  with  the 
Nic^ne  Creed  as  "  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian 
Faith."  While  not  according  any  authority  to  the  creeds  of 
Christendom,  they  arose  as  historical  necessities  for  the  confu- 
tation of  error,  they  are  the  invaluable  acquisitions  which  re- 
sulted from  long  and  bitter  conflict  with  the  enemies  of  truth, 
and  their  distinct  and  comprehensive  articulation  and  systematic 
arrangement  of  Scriptural  verities  are  among  the  priceless  treas- 
ures which  the  Church  of  to-day,  under  the  law  of  continuity, 
has  inherited  from  the  Church  of  the  past. 

Recognizing  as  we  do  the  Head  of  the  Church  upon  the  me- 
diatorial throne  governing  all  things  for  the  advancement  of  His 
Kingdom,  believing  that  He  endowed  His  Church  with  the  Spirit 
of  the  truth  to  guide  it  into  all  the  truth,  holding  in  eternal  re- 
membrance the  company  of  faithful  witnesses  who  in  their  devo- 
tion to  unmistakable  statements  of  the  Gospel  passed  through 
water  and  through  fire,  I  cannot  conceive  of  an  exigency  that 
would  justify  the  Church  in  casting  overboard  trophies  for  which 
her  noblest  servants  in  various  critical  periods  hazarded  their 


lOO  The  Church  Review. 

lives.  Is  it  worthy  of  the  Church,  for  any  cause  whatever,  to 
treat  as  of  no  moment  the  grandest  achievements  ever  made  in 
the  cause  of  truth?  Does  it  become  her  character  and  her  claims 
to  extinguish  the  light  which  for  ages  illumined  her  path,  to  turn 
her  back  upon  Scriptural  doctrines  and  systems  for  which  the 
whole  of  Christendom  has  felt  its  indebtedness  to  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries,  and  to  ignore  those  vital  principles  for 
which  the  Protestant  world  still  commemorates  the  glorious 
Reformation  ? 

Granted  that  the  Evangelical  Christian  Church  could  as  a 
whole  adopt  a  measure  so  irreconcilable  with  her  mission  as  the 
pillar  and  ground  ot  the  truth,  suppose  that  Augustine  and  his 
immediate  followers,  with  Luther,  Calvin,  Melancthon,  and  the 
other  Reformers,  could  be  relegated  to  oblivion  as  having  con- 
tributed nothing  to  the  illumination  or  compass  of  Evangelical 
doctrine,  what  intrinsic  gain  is  to  result  from  such  a  sacrifice? 
What  enlargement  of  influence,  what  increment  of  spiritual 
power,  would  accrue  to  the  communion  of  believers,  marshalled 
in  grand  proportions  of  outward  unity  under  such  conditions? 

Imagine  for  a  moment  the  realization  of  this  plan,  and  con- 
template the  advance  of  Christianity  in  the  united  body.  One 
set  of  pulpits  will  teach  the  total  wreck  of  humanity  by  sin,  an- 
other set  will  glorify  this  similitude  of  deity,  and  denying  its 
impotence,  will  hold  that  at  its  lowest  it  needs  but  a  smile  of 
encouragement  to  rise  to  the  loftiest  character.  One  cla?s  will 
hold  all  men  to  be  under  condemnation  for  original  and  actual 
sin,  from  which  the  mercy  of  GOD  alone  can  redeem  them;  an- 
other will  treat  all  with  the  complacent  pity  which  regards  man- 
kind as  unfortunate  rather  than  guilty.  Some  will  glory  in  the 
Cross  of  Christ  as  man's  only  hope,  others  will  hold  up  the 
Nazarene's  personal  character,  or  perchance  His  sublime  teach- 
ings, as  the  condition  for  the  renewal  of  the  world.  Some  will 
preach  that  faith  alone  brings  salvation  to  the  sinner,  others 
that  a  holy  'ife  is  the  one  thing  that  is  acceptable  to  GoD.  In 
some  Churches  men  will  hear  that  justification  is  simply  the 
restoration  of  the  condemned  to  God's  favor,  in  others  that 
justification  is  of  the  nature  of  sanctification,  and  that  its  literal 
meaning,  "  making  just,"  holds  in  theology.  By  some  the  sac- 
raments will  be  interpreted  as  picturesque  memorials,  by  others 
as  having  a  supernatural  content.  Here  eternal  woe  will  be 
denounced  on  the  impenitent;   yonder  it  will  be  maintained  that 


Christia7i  Reimion.  loi 

God's  infinite  love  cannot  fail  ultimately  to  draw  to  itself  every 
creature. 

What  reverence  or  prepossession  would  such  a  spectacle  in- 
spire among  them  that  are  without?  If  our  present  divisions, 
due  largely  to  diversity  of  doctrines,  form  melancholy  stumbling- 
blocks  to  the  world,  what  will  the  world  think  of  our  attempting 
to  disguise  these  divisions  under  the  garb  of  outward  unity? 

It  becomes  us  to  walk  in  wisdom  toward  those  without,  yet 
primarily  the  Church  must  guard  the  health  and  development 
of  her  own  children.  What,  now,  would  be  the  inevitable  effect 
on  these  of  such  discord  in  the  Church's  instructions  on  sub- 
jects that  touch  the  very  heart  of  Christian  experience?  It  is 
probably  a  less  serious  calamity  for  souls  to  be  entangled  in 
some  definite  error,  than  to  have  such  a  jumbling  of  truth  and 
error  from  recognized  spiritual  guides  as  must  stagger  the 
understanding  and  distract  the  conscience.  Certainly,  next  to 
corruption  of  doctrine,  the  greatest  harm  must  result  from  con- 
fusion of  doctrine.  Yet  with  no  bulwark  save  the  Nicene  Creed 
against  the  brood  of  errors  that  spring  up  invariably  in  the  path 
of  the  Gospel,  the  Church  can  have  no  guarantee  against  thaf 
confusion  and  corruption  of  doctrine  which  in  the  Middle  Ages 
followed  the  obscuration  of  sound  and  clear  views  on  sin  and 
grace.  While  not  holding  the  Episcopate  responsible  for  it, 
we  never  can  forget  that  the  Church  never  sank  so  low  as  when 
it  was  an  organic  unity  governed  by  the  Historic  Episcopate, 
but  with  Gospel  truth  neglected,  obscured,  or  corrupted. 

Desirable  as  the  reunion  of  Christendom  confessedly  is,  the 
acceptance  of  two  propositions  in  this  basis,  it  seems  to  me, 
is  out  of  the  question,  with  all  those  who  value  the  precious 
doctrines  of  grace,  which  study  and  prayer  and  conflict  and 
martyrdom  have  added  to  "  the  substantial  deposit  of  Christian 
Faith."  Among  all  the  divisions  of  the  Evangelical  Church, 
there  is  not  one  which  does  not  have  many  noble  souls,  who 
would  part  with  their  life's  blood  before  they  would  consent 
to  part  in  any  measure  or  in  any  sense  with  these  truths.  It 
appears  therefore  to  my  mind  impossible  for  "  the  chief  of  the 
Christian  Communions"  to  reunite  organically  on  any  basis  that 
does  not  include  the  common  inheritance  of  Christian  doctrine 
which  is  substantially  embodied  in  the  creeds  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  Church  is  set  for  the  defence  of  the,  truth,  not  for  its 
displacement. 


I02  The  Church  Review. 

This  does  not  sound  like  a  voice  in  favor  of  Church  union. 
These  sentiments  may  be  voted  out  of  place  in  a  Symposium  on 
the  Reunion  of  Christendom,  and  I  very  much  regret  if  I  shall 
strike  a  note  of  discord  in  a  grand  symphony  concert.  From 
the  irrepressible  agitation  of  this  subject  in  the  press,  from  a 
number  of  movements  which  express  a  powerful  public  senti- 
ment, from  many  infallible  signs  of  growing  cordiality  and  charity 
between  different  denominations,  one  might  conclude  that  an 
irresistible  current  in  behalf  of  union  has  set  in,  and  that  those 
solicited  to  write  upon  it  are  expected  simply  to  register  its 
depth  and  volume.  That  any  one  should  have  the  audacity  to 
breast  the  current  would  reflect  seriously  upon  his  discretion. 
Yet  is  it  wise,  is  it  rational,  in  a  movement  so  desirable  and  so 
momentous,  to  close  our  eyes  to  the  colossal  barriers  which 
block  its  path?  The  scandal  of  the  Church's  divisions,  like  the 
monstrous  iniquity  of  the  liquor  traffic,  is  so  revolting  that  the 
intensity  of  our  abhorrence  may  blind  us  to  the  insuperable 
difficulties  by  which  it  is  beset.  Before  adopting  visionary 
schemes  or  forming  alliances  which  in  the  end  may  only  retard 
fhe  reunion  of  our  divided  ranks,  it  becomes  us  to  take  In  if 
possible  the  situation,  to  measure  the  stupendous  dimensions  of 
the  undertaking,  and  to  gauge  the  depth  and  the  significance  of 
the  feeling  which  is  by  many  regarded  as  almost  universal  and 
therefore  indicative  of  a  providential  impulse,  a  proof  that  the 
Spirit  is  impressing  the  cause  upon  the  minds  of  Christians. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  offer  a  different  interpretation  or  to  be- 
little the  sincerity  or  the  strength  of  a  wide-spread  sentiment, 
yet  I  cannot  fail  to  observe  counter-tendencies  which  are  suffi- 
ciently powerful  to  paralyze  and  counteract  the  wisest  and 
noblest  efforts  to  heal  the  wounds  in  Christ's  body.  The 
respective  denominations  have  as  a  rule  shown  no  symptom 
of  relaxing  their  hold  on  their  doctrinal  characteristics.  The 
Baptists  have  no  idea  of  uniting  with  Christians  who  regard 
anything  besides  the  immersion  of  adult  believers  as  baptism. 
The  Lutherans  have  no  thought  of  abandoning  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  presence  in  the  Eucharist.  The  Congregationalists 
have  but  lately  shown  that  they  still  hold  to  the  Divine  right 
of  their  polity.  And  the  very  Church  which  so  honorably  and 
fraternally  makes  overtures  for  reunion  puts  in  the  foreground 
as  a  condition  its  one  distinctive  feature.  These  facts  remove 
the  enchanting  prospect  of  a  united  Evangelical  Church   into 


Christian  Reunion.  103 

the  remote  future,  although  such  adherence  to  convictions  re- 
dounds really  to  the  credit  of  those  bodies.  But  alongside  of 
this  honorable  adhesion  to  principle,  there  is  a  sectarian  uphold- 
ing of  trifles  which  is  tantamount  to  a  glorying  in  diversities  and 
divisions  for  their  own  sakes.  As  long  as  Evangelical  Chris- 
tians cannot  agree  on  the  language  of  the  LORD'S  Prayer,  or 
use  the  same  form  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  or  study  in  the 
Sunday  Schools  the  same  Scripture  lessons  on  the  great  Festi- 
vals which  have  been  fountains  of  spiritual  refreshing  to  the 
Church  in  all  ages,  there  is  hardly  any  occasion  to  hurry  up  the 
details  which  are  to  consummate  the  reunion  of  Christendom. 

It  is  not  pleasant  to  introduce  these  things  here.  It  is  not 
wise  to  ignore  them.  They  show  that,  underneath  the  current 
which  to  the  joy  of  many' makes  for  union,  there  is  a  counter- 
current  which  arrests  the  tide  of  Christian  fellowship  and  in- 
sults the  noblest  aspiration  of  our  age.  A  grave  responsibility 
for  the  perpetuation  of  schism  must  rest  upon  those  who  in  the 
face  of  the  great  multitude  of  Christians  disturb  the  harmony 
of  public  worship  by  inserting  a  sectarian  shibboleth  into  the 
common  prayer  and  the  common  creed  of  believers,  and  upon 
those  also  who,  when  charged  to  select  uniform  lessons  for  the 
Sunday  Schools  of  the  world,  put  out  from  year  to  year  a 
scheme  which  prevents  the  children  from  uniting  in  the  uni- 
versal triumph  of  Christendom  on  Easter  morning.  It  is  unde- 
niable that  as  long  as  denominations  are  thus  occupied  with 
straining  out  gnats  and  puerilities  that  represent  not  a  grain 
of  principle,  the  weightier  matter  of  a  united  Church  must  con- 
tent itself  with  an  occasional  protest.  If  we  are  to  keep  on  stick- 
ling for  set  phrases,  for  prejudices  begotten  of  ecclesiastical  or 
civil  strife,  for  opinions  and  traditions  that  have  no  significance 
except  that  they  have  been  for  some  time  in  vogue ;  if  noth- 
ing is  to  be  laid  upon  the  altar;  if  the  cause  of  Church  union 
is  not  worth  a  single  sacrifice,  and  its  realization  is  expected 
without  a  Calvary,  —  then  we  may  as  well  face  the  issue,  and 
give  up  the  contest  as  chimerical  and  hopeless. 

From  these  emphatic  negatives  it  is  apparent  that  I  have  no 
plan  of  union  to  advocate,  no  definite  proposal  to  suggest.  I 
have  at  present  no  faith  in  any  measure  that  has  come  to  my 
notice ;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  the  man  has  been  born 
who  is  capable  of  devising  a  feasible  measure.  The  insuperable 
character  of  the  obstacles  in  the  way  remind  me  of  the  limita- 


I04  The  Church  Review, 

tions  of  human  expedients;  the  desirability  of  the  object  and 
the  hope  of  its  ultimate  reaHzation  recall  the  truth  that  "  with 
God  all  things  are  possible."  And  may  not  our  extremity  once 
again  prove  God'S  opportunity? 

At  all  events,  in  our  zeal  for  this  blessed  cause  are  we  not 
in  danger  of  infringing  upon  Divine  prerogatives?  Is  not  this 
a  case  in  which  the  hand  of  Divine  wisdom  and  power  must 
interpose?  We  are  constantly  quoting  the  SAVIOUR'S  prayer  in 
behalf  of  the  unity  of  His  followers  ;  but  we  seem  to  forget  that 
it  was  a  prayer,  and  construe  it  into  a  command.  We  speak 
of  it  as  if  it  had  been  addressed  to  His  followers  instead  of  to 
His  Father,  and  we  think  it  the  bounden  duty  of  the  different 
denominations  to  answer  it.  The  continued  and  wide-spread 
agitation  of  this  issue  has  indeed  produced  a  general  conviction 
that  this  is  a  work  of  human  achievement,  that  it  devolves  upon 
the  teachers  and  leaders  in  the  various  Communions  to  institute 
measures  by  which  the  disruptions  of  CHRIST'S  body  may  be 
healed,  and  the  scattered  fragments  of  His  hosts  become  united. 
Are  we  not  in  peril  of  putting  ourselves  in  the  place  of  GOD, 
of  taking  upon  ourselves  what  belongs  to  the  Father,  of  inter- 
meddling presumptuously  with  what  GOD  has  reserved  to  His 
own  season  and  His  own  power? 

The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  among  all  nations  the  REDEEMER 
intrusted  to  His  disciples  under  the  condition  of  His  abiding 
presence  with  them  ;  but  when  the  work  of  uniting  the  redeemed 
in  one  fold  lay  as  a  mighty  burden  upon  His  heart,  He  addressed 
His  memorable  prayer  to  His  FATHER  in  heaven.  The  creation 
of  a  united  Church  is  not  the  product  of  men's  hands ;  it  is  the 
work  of  that  Omnipotence  which  in  the  beginning  reduced  the 
chaos  of  matter  into  the  majestic  unity  of  the  universe. 

Our  only  hope  for  the  unity  of  the  Church  lies  there,  where 
our  Lord  Himself  looked  for  it,  —  in  the  Father's  great  heart. 
And  we  joyfully  look  for  the  day  when  all  Christians  shall  be 
one,  not  because  we  have  faith  in  what  is  devised  or  proposed 
from  any  quarter,  but  because  the  only  begotten  Sox  prayed 
for  this  result  to  His  FATHER,  and  we  know  that  the  FATHER 
always  hearcth  Him. 

It  becomes  us,  indeed,  to  be  in  accord  with  our  MASTER'S 
prayer,  —  to  have  in  this,  as  in  all  things,  the  same  mind  which 
dwelt  in  Him.  The  first  duty  and  the  first  sign  of  prom- 
ise for  ultimate  union  in  the  Church  is  the  cultivation  of  sym- 


Christian  Rninion.  \q'. 


evolves  on 


pathy,  charity,  and  concord  with  one  another.  It  d 
us  indeed  to  pray  as  Me  prayed,  to  keep  on  repeatini^^  His 
prayer.  And  our  conduct  must  be  consistent  with  our  pra\-iii!:r^ 
**,  endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace;  "  but  we  must  distinguish  between  what  is  (j(jI)'s  prov- 
ince and  what  is,  ours,  between  that  which  He  alone  can  accom- 
pHsh  and  that  which  is  clearly  made  our  duty. 

It  will  greatly  help  the  cause  so  near  to  our  hearts  if  we  rev- 
erently bear  this  in  mind.  Nothing  is  gained  by  men  attempt- 
ing to  run  ahead  of  God's  leading,  or  by  pushing  at  the  slow 
wheels  ot  the  Divine  chariot.  Probably  no  marked  advance 
in  the  relations  of  the  different  denominations  need  be  expected 
until  a  signal  is  noted  from  above,  and  in  conjunction  with  it 
a  mighty  moving  of  the  HOLY  Ghost  upon  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  men.  It  may  come  in  the  form  of  fire,  in  awful 
calamities. 

Jehovah  found  a  way  of  reuniting  His  ancient  people  through 
the  terrible  ordeal  of  a  long  captivity.  He  put  an  end  to  the 
monstrous  strife  which  in  the  first  century  raged  between  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christians  by  reducing  to  ashes  the  Holy  Temple 
whose  continuing  worship  blinded  the  Jews  to  the  essentials 
of  salvation.  The  fires  of  overwhelming  catastrophes  have  in 
the  past  proved  the  all-potent  agency  for  fusing  together  the 
diverse  elements  of  God's  kingdom.  And  all  the  intimations 
of  revelation  and  all  the  lessons  of  history  induce  the  belief 
that  in  God's  own  time  His  furnaces  will  consume  our  sectarian 
idols,  extinguish  the  dissensions  and  contentions  of  His  people, 
and  melt  them  into  a  unity  which  has  its  ideal  and  prototype 
in  the  union  of  the  SoN  with  the  Father. 

E.  J.  Wolf. 

Theological  Seminary,  Gettysburg. 


The  Rev.  William  V.  Kelley,  D.D.  [Methodist], 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  : 

THIS  article  is  invited  by  a  request  which  presents  as  mate- 
rials for  consideration  the  overtures  toward  reunion  put 
forth  by  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
1886,  the  Lambeth  Conference  indorsement  of  the  same  in  1888, 


io6  The  Chtirch  Review, 

and  the  conclusions  of  the  London  Conference  of  leading 
Anglicans  and  Non-Conformists  held  last  December,  as  given  in 
the  Church  Review  for  January,  1890.  It  is  proper  that  our  re- 
sponse to  this  courteous  invitation  should  be  with  equal  courtesy 
of  spirit,  as  well  as  with  such  perfect  candor  as  is  necessary  to 
personal  honesty  and  to  the  value  of  any  discussion.  Nothing 
but  good,  and  perhaps  greater  good  than  any  of  us  foresee,  can 
come  of  frank  and  fraternal  debate.  To  save  ourselves  at  the 
outset  from  the  misfortune  of  being  at  any  point  misunderstood, 
we  premise  our  conviction  that  fervent  love,  utter  respect,  and 
general  co-operation  between  all  Christian  bodies,  resulting  in 
all  possible  effective  unity,  are  parts  of "  a  consummation  de- 
voutly to  be  wished ;  "  and  there  is  no  prayer  in  which  we  join 
more  earnestly  than  that  of  CHRIST  for  oneness  -among  His 
disciples,  in  which  petition  we  imagine  that  we  hear  the  voice 
of  Protestant  Christendom  uniting.  We  apprehend  that  the 
only  difference  of  opinion  will  be  over  the  kind  and  form  of 
unity  considered  possible. 

Th^  first  three  quarters  of  the  basis  proposed  for  union  by 
the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference  is  intelli- 
gibly clear,  and,  we  think,  not  in  the  nature  of  things  impossible 
to  agree  upon.  Over  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  first  founda- 
tion-stone there  can  be  no  dispute.  Agreement  upon  the  two 
creeds,  w^hich  are  virtually  one,  as  a  sufficient  statement  of 
Christian  Faith,  seems  perhaps  a  not  altogether  unlikely  or  re- 
mote possibility;  for  undeniably  the  trend  of  the  time  is  toward 
an  abbreviation  of  creeds,  contracting  the  required  confessions 
of  belief  into  narrower  compass.  Our  personal  sympathies  and 
judgment  move  in  that  direction,  and,  if  we  mistake  not,  the 
persuasion  grows  throughout  Protestant  Christendom  that  wis- 
dom lies  that  way.  A  firm  adherence  to  the  few  items  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  constitute  Christian  Faith,  with  range  and 
verge  for  free  opinion  beyond,  has  obvious  and  great  advan- 
tages. One  advantage  is  that  this  course  returns  us  toward  the 
simplicity  of  the  primitive  Church,  freeing  us  possibly  from 
some  things  which  may  be  of  the  nature  of  incrustation  rather 
than  growth,  and  tending  to  save  us  from  the  error  of  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.  Another  gain  in  such 
abbreviation  of  creed-requirements  is  that  it  renders  feasible  a 
more  extensive  unity  as  fewer  points  of  harmony  are  held 
requisite  for  union.     Do  not  interest  and  justice   both  urge  to 


Chrislian  Rciiiiioji.  107 

this?  Would  not  this  larger  inclusivcncss  put  the  Church  in 
possession  of  its  own  by  claimin<^  and  appropriating  all  those 
who  vitally  belong  to  it;  while  it  would  admit  to  Church  priv- 
ileges every  one  who  is  essentially  Christian  and  therefore  fairly 
entitled  to  recognition  and  membership?  There  can  be  no 
danger  in  this.  A  strengthening  of  the  stakes  of  the  Christian 
tent  would  make  safe  a  lengthening  of  its  cords  to  an  enlarged 
comprehensiveness.  Put  loud  and  unanimous  accent  on  the  fun- 
damentals. Let  the  solid  emphasis  of  all  Protestant  Churches 
be  massed  on  the  few  central  essentials  of  faith,  closely  com- 
pacted in  statement,  instead  of  being  distributed  and  dispersed 
over  voluminous  amplifications  and  peripheric  variations,  and 
there  will  be  no  peril  in  embracing  all  \\\\o  loyally  assent  to 
those  indisputable  essentials.  Another  effect  of  a  restriction 
of  Christian  creeds  to  the  comprehensive  fundamentals  is  an 
allowance  of  greater  liberty  in  non-essentials,  and  in  items  of 
secondary  importance,  a  larger  range  to  individual  thought  and 
taste  in  what  may  be  derived  through  experience  or  reasoned 
and  constructed  on  the  Divinely  outlined  foundations.  We 
take  it  to  be  the  general  opinion  of  our  day  that  such  an  allow- 
ance of  freedom  is  in  harmony  with  true  progress.  A  formal 
union  which  does  not  permit  liberty  to  individuality  Is  mechan- 
ical, superficial,  insincere,  oppressive,  and  temporary.  While 
we  witness  many  efforts  toward  realizing  brotherhood  and  or- 
ganizing unity  of  various  kinds,  the  most  imperious  voice  that 
shakes  the  air  of  to-day  is  the  one  which  demands  recognition 
and  protection  for  the  rights  of  the  individual,  both  in  matters 
of  thought  and  in  matters  of  conduct.  Protestantism  and 
democratic  institutions  are  responsible  for  that.  It  is  essential 
to  the  soundness  and  stability  of  any  sort  of  union  that  only  so 
much  concession  tow^ard  concert  of  opinion  and  action  be 
asked  of  each  member  as  may  be  absolutely  indispensable  to 
the  secure  existence  of  that  union. 

The  Lambeth  Report's  third  condition  of  union,  relating  to  the 
sacraments,  may  be  passed  with  approval  and  without  debate. 

It  is  at  the  fourth  and  last  point  of  the  proposed  basis  that 
we  are  brought  to  a  halt  by  what  seems  a  lack  of  explicitness. 
The  documents  themselves  give  us  no  light  as  to  what  is  in- 
tended by  the  *'  Historic  Episcopate  "  in  the  overtures  of  the 
Episcopal  bishops  or  their  Lambeth  indorsement.  Is  it  our 
obtuseness   or  is  it  something  else  that  causes    perplexity    or 


ic8  The  Church  Review, 

hesitation  in  us  of  ''other  Communions"  over  many  Episco- 
palian and  Anglican  deliverances  on  the  subject  of  Church 
union?  When  the  American  bishops  say  in  a  communication 
to  the  House  of  Deputies,  *'We  believe  that  all  who  have  been 
duly  baptized  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  FATHER  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  HOLY  GlioST,  are  members  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,"  we  receive  no  clear  message,  because  we  are 
in  doubt  what  is  the  precise  thought  behind  that  one  word 
'*  duly."  In  like  manner,  when  the  same  message  says,  "■  In  all 
things  of  human  ordering  or  human  choice  relating  to  modes  of 
worship  and  discipline  or  to  traditional  customs,  this  Church  is 
ready  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  humility  to  forego  all  preferences 
of  her  own,"  for  the  sake  of  unity  with  others,  while  our  hearts 
burn  within  us  responsively  to  the  sweet,  gentle,  winsome  tone 
of  the  utterance,  we  are  yet  not  informed  by  the  message  what 
things  the  House  of  Bishops  regards  as  "  of  human  ordering  or 
human  choice;  "  and  just  there  lies  a  possibility  of  the  reopen- 
ing of  an  ancient  debate  from  differences  of  opinion  between 
the  bishops  and  the  unprelatical  denominations. 

We  count  it  also  a  defect  in  many  of  the  appeals  for  union 
that  they  fail  to  include  a  definition  of  the  nature  and  degree  of 
the  desired  unity.  Collateral  evidence,  however,  indicates  that 
generally,  if  not  always,  it  is  organic  union  that  is  contemplated 
in  such  overtures.  The  Church  Review  in  its  last  previous 
issue  speaks  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Conference  of 
leading  Anglicans  and  Non-Conformists  in  London  last  Decem- 
ber as  '*  the  only  practical  result  yet  reached  in  the  matter  of 
organic  unity." 

The  first  and  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  such  union  is 
the  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  its  possibility  or  desirability. 
Without  any  disposition  to  imply  that  it  is  impossible  for  the 
Anglican  Church  in  Britain  and  the  United  States  to  be  GOD'S 
chosen  instrument  to  lead  on  a  world-wide  reform,  we  may  yet 
remark  that  it  seems  somewhat  strange  that  if  the  organic 
union  of  Christendom  is  a  necessity,  such  intelligent  and  en- 
terprising bodies  as  the  great  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Congre- 
gational Church,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should 
not  perceive  its  desirability,  and  with  their  characteristic  zeal, 
practical  habits  of  mind,  and  desire  for  the  highest  systematic 
efficiency,  move  for  it.  Is  there  any  sign  that  these  influential 
Churches  regard  organic  union  as  a  clear  desideratum? 


CJirislian  Reiniion.  109 

No  fact  is  better  known  than  that  tlie  non-Angh'can  Ceminun- 
ions  have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  considering  denomina- 
tionalisni  in  general  an  unmitigated  evil;  while  of  course  each 
denomination  thinks  its  own  separate  existence  justifiable  and 
necessary.  It  is  not  certain  that  luiy  one  of  these  religious 
bodies,  if  it  had  the  power  to  destroy  denominationalism  by 
absorbing  all  other  Churches  and  Christians  into  its  own  fold, 
would  do  so;  the  reason  for  this  being  a  persuasion  that  denom- 
inationalism in  itself  has  a  mission  the  fulfilment  of  which  has 
been  and  will  be  beneficent  and  variously  advantageous.  It  is 
quite  impossible  for  us  to  believe  that  the  majority  of  Protestant 
Christians  will  ever  be  prepared  to  agree  with  the  Rev.  William 
Granger,  a  zealous  and  honorable  advocate  of  Church  union, 
that  the  Father  of  Lies  is  the  author  of  denominationalism, 
any  more  than  they  will  concede  the  assertion  of  the  Romish 
Church  that  Protestantism  is  a  work  of  the  Devil. 

The  American  Episcopal  bishops  say,  "  This  Church  does 
not  seek  to  absorb  other  Communions,"  but  if  "  any  Christian 
bodies"  seek  "the  restoration  of  the  organic  unity  of  the 
Church,"  the  Church  is  ready  "  to  enter  into  brotherly  confer- 
ence with  "  such  bodies.  If  any  prophet  sees  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical sky  a  sign  as  big  as  a  man's  hand  that  any  of  those 
"  bodies "  are  seeking  or  likely  to  seek  organic  union  with 
the  Church  which  now  issues  overtures,  we  shall  be  glad  to 
have  the  token  pointed  out.  In  1872  Dr.  Campbell,  the  Pri- 
mate of  England,  characterized  it  as  visionary  to  "  look  for- 
ward to  a  time  when  all  the  various  denominations  throughout 
Britain  are  to  come  and  desire  admission  into  the  Church  of 
England." 

The  sagacity  of  this  opinion  is  plain  to  minds  of  only  ordi- 
nary discernment  from  less  lofty  points  of  observation  than  the 
Archbishopric  of  Canterbury. 

The  Church  Review  in  its  issue  of  January,  1890,  remark- 
ing on  the  fact  that  no  Methodists  joined  in  the  Conference  of 
leading  Anglican  and  Non-Conformists  in  London,  in  December 
last,  says:  "The  Methodists  are  exactly  those  upon  whom  our 
claim  is  the  strongest  and  who  had  least  ground  for  quitting  our 
fellowship."  In  a  sermon  in  Christ  Church,  Bedford  Ave., 
Brooklyn,  a  New  York  City  rector  said  in  presence  of  the 
Bishop  of  Long  Island,  "  If  we  had  treated  the  Methodists 
wisely  and  fairly,  they  would  not  have  gone  out  from  us."     If 


I  lo  The  Church  Review. 

the  Methodists  are  especially  in  mind  in  the  appeals  for 
Church  union,  we  can  only  say  that  the  time  of  their  probable 
return  in  a  body  to  the  Anglican  Communion  seems  to  us  very 
remote ;  indeed,  all  reasonable  expectation  of  such  a  return  is 
as  dead  as  the  cause  of  the  Stuarts,  with  whose  restoration 
under  Charles  II.,  in  i66i,  the  less  liberal  and  more  exclusive 
views  toward  non-Episcopalian  bodies  were  fastened  on  the 
Anglican  Church.  The  House  of  Hanover  is  as  likely  to  abdi- 
cate in  favor  of  the  descendants  of  the  Stuarts  as  the  Methodist 
Church  is  to  abjure  its  right  of  existence  in  deference  to  Angli- 
can views.  And  surely  the  noble  and  intelligent  men  who  are 
urging  the  overtures  which  are  under  consideration  in  this 
symposium  are  too  wise  to  suppose  that,  in  any  approach 
toward  union,  any  one  of  the  non-Episcopalian  bodies  will  be 
influenced  in  the  slightest  degree  by  a  desire  to  recover  con- 
nection, alleged  to  be  lost,  with  a  "  Historic  Episcopate." 
The  day  never  can  come  which  will  find  these  large  and  power- 
ful denominations  dissatisfied  with  the  validity  and  authority  of 
their  ministry,  or  the  genuineness  of  their  standing  as  proper 
and  living  parts  of  the  Body  of  CHRIST.  In  these  matters  they 
will  abide  solidly  on  the  foundations  they  have  chosen.  They 
believe,  with  some  of  the  greatest  leaders  the  Episcopal 
Church  has  ever  had,  that  "Apostolic  succession,"  so-called,  is  a 
myth  entirely  unprovable,  and  spiritually  valueless  even  if  it 
were  proven.  Nor  have  pretentions  to  superiority  based  on 
this  notion  always  been  put  forth  by  the  Anglican  Church.  If 
we  mistake  not,  there  were  a  hundred  years  during  which,  in 
the  language  of  an  eminent  clergyman  of  that  Communion, 
"  no  one  in  the  Church  of  England  thought  of  calling  in 
question  the  validity  of  the  orders  and  sacraments  of  the 
Reformed  Churches,"  which  were  presbyterial  in  ordination 
and  government,  and  from  which  ministers  and  members  were 
received  to  immediate  and  equal  standing  in  the  Church  of 
England. 

We  hold  that  there  may  be  a  vital  and  efi"ective  unity  of 
Protectant  Christendom  without  organic  consolidation,  and  that 
in  our  time  every  sunrise  finds  that  spiritual  oneness  more  com- 
plete. It  is  absurd  in  these  days  to  imply  that  denomina- 
tionalism  necessarily  means  "  bitterness  and  unhallowed  strife." 
The  only  strife  it  legitimately  stimulates  is  an  emulous  rivalry 
in  usefulness.     The  lamentable  old  dim  days  of  mutual  miscon- 


C/n^is/iirji  Rcicuicm.  ill 

ception,  which  were  hkc  that  battle  on  dark  DundagiLby  the 
Cornish  Sea,  where  — 

"Friend  and  foe  were  mingled  in  the  mist, 
And  friend  slew  friend,  not  knowing  whom  he  slew"  — 

are  Ion<:^  gone  by,  and  more  and  more  on  all  the  circuit  f^f 
great  Zion's  walls,  the  watchmen  see  eye  to  eye  and  concen- 
trate hostilities  upon  the  foe. 

Whether  an  organic  union  of  all,  or  of  the  principal,  Protes- 
tant Communions  is  desirable  or  even  possible,  is  matter  for 
gradual  elucidation  by  free  and  frank  discussions  like  the  pres- 
ent, in  the  spirit  of  love  and  meekness,  with  a  disposition  to 
make  all  possible  concessions  "  for  euphony's  sake,"  as  the 
college  phrase  puts  it.  While  to  us  neither  the  possibility  nor 
the  desirability  is  clear,  we  offer  to  all  sincere  and  earnest 
reasoners  a  hospitable  mind  open  to  light  and  conviction. 

One  thing,  it  seems  to  us,  must  occur  to  every  reflective 
mind.  In  all  attempts  at  reform,  a  logical  order  and  natural  se- 
quence of  consistent  action  should  be  preserved ;  and  whether 
it  be  organic  union  or  only  a  perfect  fraternity  and  co-opera- 
tiorTthat  is  aimed  at,  all  overtures  are  likely  to  be  futile  if  un- 
accompanied by  a  full  recognition,  in  utterance  and  bearing 
and~actTon,  of  ecclesiastical  equality, —  a  practical  recognition 
bj^an  even  interchange  of  pulpits,  ministers,  and  members. 
Negotiations  for  union  ought  to  be  conducted  on  a  level,  and 
not  on  an  incline.  The  consulting  group  has  difficulty  in  keep- 
ing its  footing  on  the  slope  long  enough  to  hold  a  conference, 
and  the  members  of  it  tend  to  slide  away  from  one  another. 
Until  every  barrier  to  actual  fraternity  is  thrown  flat  by  the 
hands  which  now  hold  such  barriers  up,  organic  unity  is  certainly 
a  Utopian  dream.  In  a  message  to  the  House  of  Deputies, 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  House  of  Bishops  in  1886  avowed 
the  "  solemn  purpose  "  to  seek  some  practical  plan  for  '*  ter- 
minating the  unhappy  divisions"  which  separate  their  "fellow- 
Christians  in  this  land  ;  "  but  in  the  same  message  the  bishops 
declined  to  approve  a  resolution,  adopted  by  the  House  of 
Deputies,  sending  mere  cordial  greetings  to  their  "  Congrega- 
tional brethren  "  assembled  at  the  same  time  in  the  same  city. 
We  must  be  pardoned  if,  like  Mr.  Lincoln,  we  are  "  reminded  of 
a  story."  In  Warren  County,  New  Jersey,  is  a  village  named 
Harmony.     At   Martin's    Creek   one    day  a   traveller   asked    a 


112  The  Cktirch  Review. 

man  whom  he  met  on  the  road,  "  How  far  is  it  to  Harmony,  if  I 
go  straight  ahead?"  "Well,"  replied  the  man,  **  if  you  go 
straight  ahead  in  the  direction  you  are  going,  it  is  about  twenty- 
five  thousand  miles;  but  if  you  will  turn  right  around,  it  is 
three  miles."  We  do  not  trifle.  Our  words  are  earnest,  pray- 
erful, and  loving.  Shameful  would  it  be  to  write  or  speak 
otherwise  on  the  sacred  and  momentous  subject  of  Christian 
Unity.  If  there  are  any  questions  which  men  should  consider 
upon  their  knees,  this  is  one  of  them.  If  there  be  one  desire 
which  we  ought  to  foster  with  hopeful  and  yearning  hearts, 
making  it  dictate  our  prayers  and  our  actions,  it  is  that  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  Universal  will  lead  on  His  leagued 
hosts,  ordered  in  whatever  unity  shall  contribute  most  to  widest 
and  swiftest  victory.  We  are  bound  to  hold  our  doubts  in 
check  with  the  constant  remembrance  of  the  lesson  history 
teaches,  that  it  is  possible  for  us  to  be  living,  without  knowing 
it,  on  the  eve  of  great  events;  and  the  perfect  unification,  in 
some  form  or  other,  of  all  Christian  forces  may  be  nearer  now 

than  we  think. 

William  V.  Kelley,  D.D. 


Professor  George  R.  Crooks,  D.D.  [Methodist],  Drew 
Theological  SexMinary,  Madison,  New  Jersey. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  :  ' 

YOUR  courteous  request  that  I  reply,  as  a  Methodist,  to  the 
proposals  of  union  put  forth  by  the  House  of  Bishops  in 
1886,  and  reissued  by  the  "  Conference  of  Bishops  of  the  An- 
glican Communion,"  in  1888,  demands  of  me,  I  assume,  an  ex- 
plicit reply.  The  subject  is  so  important  that  all  the  Churches 
interested  must  if  possible  come  into  a  clear  understanding 
with  one  another.  The  Basis  of  Reunion  (we  prefer  the  term 
''union")   proposed  is  contained  in  the  following  points:  — 

1.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as 
'*  containing  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,"  and  as  being  the 
rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith. 

2.  The  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol;  and  the 
Nicene  Creed,  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith. 

3.  The  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  CHRIST  Himself,  —  Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  LORD,  —  ministered  with  unfailing 


CIiristia7i  Reunion.  1 1 3 

use  of  Christ's  words  of  institution,  and  of  the  elements 
ordained  by  Ilim. 

4.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods 
of  its  administration  to  the  varyin<^  needs  of  the  nations  and 
peoples  called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  His  Church. 

To  the  first  three  statements  there  can  be  no  objection ;  some 
migHFcontend  for  the  double  procession  of  the  HOLV  Sl'lRiT, 
and  urge  its  addition  to  the  Nicene  Symbol,  but,  I  imagine,  not 
many  would  make  that  a  bar  to  union.  The  real  difficulty  will 
be  in  the  fourth  proposition,  —  the  acceptance  of  "  the  Historic 
Episco[)ate,"  as  you  are  supposed  to  understand  the  meaning  of 
that  term. 

We  take  you  to  mean  by  this  expression  theJEpiscopate  which, 
derived  by  a  distinct  line  of  succession  from  the  Apostles,  is  the 
channel  through  which  the  grace  of  the  HOLY  SPIRIT  is  conveyed 
to  the  body  of  believers.  Also,  that  the  conveyance  of  grace 
through  this  channel  is  indispensable  to  a  valid  administration  of 
the  sacraments.  Properly,  it  is  incumbent  on  your  bishops  who 
make  the  offer  of  union  to  define  terms,  and  if  it  were  possible 
to  obtain  from  them  within  reasonable  time  an  exact  account  of 
the  meaning  which  they  place  upon  this  form  of  language,  I 
would  rest  here  and  write  no  more.  But  this  cannot  be  done. 
I  must  therefore  gather  its  sense  from  other  parts  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Pan-Anglican  Synod  of  1888.  The  address  of 
all  the  bishops,  signed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  con- 
tains these  words :  — 

The  attitude  of  the  Anglican  Communion  toward  the  religious  bodies 
now  separated  from  it  by  unhappy  divisions  would  appear  to  be  this  : 
We  hold  ourselves  in  readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly  conference  with  any 
of  those  who  may  desire  intercommunion  with  us  in  a  more  or  less  perfect 
form.  We  lay  down  conditions  on  which  such  intercommunion  is,  in 
our  opinion,  and  according  to  our  conviction,  possible.  For  however  we 
may  long  to  embrace  those  now  alienated  from  us,  so  that  the  ideal  of 
the  one  flock  under  the  one  Shepherd  may  be  realized,  we  must  not  be 
unfaithful  stewards  of  the  great  deposit  intrusted  to  us.  We  cannot  desert 
our  position  either  as  to  Faith  or  Discipline.  That  concord  would  in 
our  judgment  be  neither  true  nor  desirable  which  should  be  produced  by 
such  surrender. 

So,  also  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Home  Reunion  made 
at  the  same  Conference  speaks  thus :  — ■ 

8 


J 


114  T/ie  Church  Review, 

The  Committee  were  of  opinion  .  .  .  that  both  from  deeper  study 
and  from  larger  historical  experience  there  was  in  the  present  day  a 
greater  disposition  to  value  and  to  accept  the  Ancietit  Church  Order} 
Moreover,  Resolution  Nineteenth,  and  last  of  the  series  adopted  at 
Lambeth,  says  :  '  That,  as  regards  newly  constituted  Churches,  espe- 
cially in  non-Christian  lands,  it  should  be  a  condition  of  the  recognition 
of  them  as  in  complete  intercommunion  with  us,  and  especially  of  their 
receiving  from  us  Episcopal  Succession,  that  we  should  first  receive  from 
them  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  hold  substantially  the  same  doctrine 
as  our  own,  etc'  ^ 

Here  accord  in  doctrine  and  the  acceptance  of  Episcopal 
Succession  are  put  together  as  both  indispensable  to  inter- 
communion. 

I  am  confirmed  in  my  opinion  that  this  is  your  meaning  of 
the  words  *'  Historic  Episcopate "  by  the  language  of  your 
bishops,  just  cited,  put  in  comparison  with  the  first  three 
terms  of  union.  Do  you  hold  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  con- 
tain all  things  necessary  to  salvation?  So  do  we.  And  that 
they  are  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith?  So  do  we. 
Do  you  hold  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol? 
So  do  we.  And  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  rule  of 
Faith?  So  do  we.  Do  you  confess  two  sacraments  only 
ordained  by  CHRIST?  So  do  we.  And  ask  that  they  be 
ministered  in  both  kinds  with  the  unfailing  use  of  the  words  of 
Christ's  institution?  So  do  we.  There  must  be,  then,  the 
one  point  only  —  the  Historic  Episcopate  —  in  regard  to  which 
we  differ.  Not  an  Episcopate  merely,  for  I  speak  in  the  name 
of  Methodists,  who  have  an  honored  Episcopate,  but  one  de- 
rived through  a  certain  order  of  succession  and  holding  a 
"  deposit "  of  grace  '*  intrusted  "  to  its  keeping. 

You  will  excuse  the  care  I  have  taken  to  define  this  phrase, 
in  default  of  precise  definition  on  your  side.  If  I  have  rightly 
construed  the  meaning  of  the  bishops  at  Lambeth,  then  I  must 
say,  in  all  kindness,  that  Methodists  cannot  accept  union  with 
you  on  this  basis,  and  for  the  following  reasons :  — 

I.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  Anglican  bishops  hold  "a 
great  deposit  [of  grace]  intrusted"^  to  them  in  a  sense  not 
applicable  to  other  clergymen.      Nor  do  we  believe  that  the 

1  Page  36.     The  Italics  in  this  article  are  my  own. 

2  Page  28.  ^  Lambeth  Conference,  p.  15. 


Christian  Reunion.  1 1 5 

succession  which  they  claim  from  the  Apostles  is  csficntial  to 
the  validity  of  the  sacraments.  We  hold  that  all  the  offices 
and  ministrations  of  the  Church  ordained  by  CllKIST  are  means 
of  grace  to  the  believer,  but  that  the  grace  is  ministered  to  him 
by  the  direct  action  of  the  SPIRIT.  If  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  he,  according  to  the  formula,  "  feeds  upon  ClIRlST  in 
his  heart  by  faith,  with  thanksgiving,"  he  has  a  valid  sacrament, 
no  matter  if  the  minister  who  has  pronounced  the  words  of 
institution,  and  distributes  the  elements,  was  ordained  by  lay- 
men. Whatever  **  the  great  deposit"  intrusted  to  your  bishops 
may  be,  we  attach  no  importance  to  it.  Our  sacraments  are 
in  our  estimation  already  valid  sacraments.  Children  and 
adults  baptized  by  us  have,  as  we  believe,  a  truly  Christian 
baptism ;  our  communicants  who  receive  the  memorials  of 
Christ's  passion  are  nourished  by  the  partaking  of  CllRlST 
**  after  a  spiritual  and  heavenly  manner."  Therefore  we  say 
consistently  of  the  separation  now  existing,  we  are  no  more 
**  alienated  "  from  you  than  you  are  "  alienated  "  from  us.  Nor 
can  we  believe  that  '*  the  ideal  of  one  flock  under  one  Shep- 
herd "  is  to  be  realized  by  our  accepting  your  Episcopacy.  The 
Shepherd  is  one  and  unchangeable ;  the  flock  is  already  one  in 
Him,  and  needs  only  to  act  in  harmony  wnth  that  Divine  ideal 
to  make  the  outward  expression  of  its  oneness  what  it  ought 
to  be. 

2.  I  apprehend,  from  the  terms  employed  in  the  Proceedings 
of  the  "  Conference  of  Bishops,"  that  we  do  not  agree  with  you 
on  the  point  of  the  essentials  of  unity.  From  the  Report  of  the 
'*  Committee  on  Home  Reunion,"  I  gather  the  following  expres- 
sions. They  speak  of  a  resolution  passed  in  1861,  **  praying 
the  bishops  to  commend  the  subject  of  reunion  to  the  divided 
members  of  Christ's  body"  [p.  82];  of  a  joint  committee 
appointed  '*  to  report  upon  the  relations  between  the  Church 
of  this  country  and  those  who  in  this  country  are  alienated  from 
her  Communion  "  [p.  82]  ;  of  a  readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly 
conference  with  all  or  any  Christian  bodies  seeking  the  restora- 
tion of  the  organic  unity  of  the  CJiurcJi  [pp.  84,  85]  ;  of  a  con- 
fidence felt  by  them  that  the  non-Episcopal  bodies  of  the 
present  day  show  a  greater  disposition  "  to  value  and  accept 
the  ancient  Church  order  "  [p.  86]  ;  again,  of  a  readiness  to 
*'  consider  what  steps  can  be  taken  either  toward  corporate  reuti- 
ioJiy  or  toward  such  relations  as  may  prepare  the  wa^y  for  organic 


ii6  The  Church  Review. 

unity  hereafter."  Am  I  right  in  inferring  from  these  passages 
that  you  conceive  the  unity  of  the  Church  to  consist  in  the 
acceptance  of  a  certain  external  order,  to  wit,  the  Historic 
Episcopate?  If  you  hold  that  the  unity  of  the  Church  depends 
upon  an  external  bond,  we  Methodists  hold  it  to  depend  upon 
an  internal  bond.  We  believe  the  unity  of  Christ's  Body  to 
be  a  Divine  fact,  in  a  sense  which  seems  to  separate  us  in  opin- 
ion from  you.  Our  doctrine  is  that  Christ's  body  is  one,  by 
virtue  of  His  Divine  life  pervading  all  its  members,  wherever 
they  may  be,  or  under  whatever  forms  of  Church  order  they 
may  worship.  Its  unity  is  something  which  we  as  human  agents 
cannot  establish.  It  is  an  "  organic  unity,"  because  the  Church 
is  a  body  having  a  head,  *'  even  CHRIST,"  and  members  united 
to  Him  by  an  appropriating  faith.  From  this  head,  **  the  whole 
body  fitly  joined  together,  and  compacted  by  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth,  .  .  .  maketh  increase  unto  the  building  up  of 
itself  in  love"  [Eph.  iv.  15,  16].  The  head  of  the  Church  and 
the  fountain  of  its  life  is  CHRIST,  and  not  a  company  of  bishops 
acting  as  intermediaries  between  Him  and  believers.  As  we 
construe  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  the  body  makes  increase 
directly  from  Him  [ch.  iv.  16]. 

If  these  convictions  rest  on  a  Scriptural  basis,  our  business 
is  not  to  try  to  create  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church  through 
the  acceptance  of  one  external  order  rather  than  another,  but 
to  act  in  harmony  with  a  fact  already  Divinely  established. 
Being  already  made  sons  of  GOD  and  brothers  one  with  an- 
other, our  duty  is  to  recognize  the  brotherly  bond,  to  come 
into  the  fellowship  which  is  the  legitimate  product  of  a  sense 
of  unity.  We  ask  nothing  of  you  but  brotherly  love;  and  this 
is  all  we  need  offer  on  our  side.  But  if  anything  we  have  can 
profit  you,  take  it  and  welcome,  in  God'S  name. 

Pardon  me,  if  at  this  point  I  speak  candidly;  but  what  I  am 
about  to  say  ought,  I  think,  to  be  said.  When  I  look  through 
the  Proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  the  Bishops  of  the  A7iglican 
Coinmimion,  I  find  a  very  halting  manifestation  of  brotherliness. 
The  avoidance  of  the  recognition  of  the  Christian  bodies  they 
address  as  Churches  strikes  me  very  painfully.  The  bishops 
tell  us,  '*  We  thankfully  recognize  the  real  religious  work  which 
is  carried  on  by  Christian  bodies  not  of  our  Communion  ;  "  so  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Home  Reunion  designates  us  as 
*'  Christian  bodies"  [pp.  84,  85,  88]  ;  the  Committee  also  recom- 


Ch  ristia  71  Rcu  71  io7i.  117 

mend  that  conferences  be  held,  "  such  as  that  which  has  already 
been  proposed  by  the  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
with  the  representatives  of  other  chief  Christian  Communions  in 
the  English-speaking  races."  Are  we  to  infer  that  you  do  not 
recognize  these  brethren  whom  you  approach  with  proffers  of 
love  as  true  Churches  in  jESUS  CllRlST?  Must  we  presume  you 
not  to  be  aware  that  a  proffer  of  union  coming  to  us  in  this 
guise  must  necessarily  be  offensive  ?  Let  me  assure  you,  then, 
that  we  believe  our  Churchly  standing  to  be  good  and  sufficient 
in  the  presence  of  Him  who  is  head  over  all  things.  We  say, 
then,  in  the  language  of  your  bishops,  "  We  cannot  desert  our 
position  either  as  to  Faith  or  Discipline.  That  concord  would, 
in  our  judgment,  be  neither  true  nor  desirable  which  should  be 
produced  by  such  a  surrender."  ^ 

Thanking  you  for  the  invitation  to  speak  on  this  subject  in 
the  pages  of  the  Church  Review,  believe  me, 
Yours  most  sincerely, 

George  R.  Crooks. 


%\\t  (Hnitv  of  tl)e  i^isiifale  Cljurcl^* 

The   Rev.   Henry    J.    Van    Dyke,   D.D.    [Presbyterian], 
Brooklyn,  New  York. 

THE  day  for  eulogizing  the  division  of  the  Church  of  CHRIST 
into  "  denominations,"  has  gone  by.  Thoughtful  and 
earnest  Christians  are  coming  more  and  more  to  recognize 
and  mourn  over  it  as  evil,  in  its  origin  and  its  results.  We 
get  the  most  vivid  impression  of  the  evil  when  we  lay  aside  all 
abstract  theories  and  look  at  the  concrete  facts  as  they  exist 
before  our  eyes.  We  cannot  embrace  the  Christian  world  in 
our  view ;  but  we  can  consider  a  part  as  the  type  of  the  whole. 
Here  is  a  town,  not  a  hundred  miles  from  any  of  us,  consisting 
of  a  thousand  inhabitants,  or  about  two  hundred  families,  — just 
enough  to  make  one  parish  or  pastoral  charge,  able  to  sustain 
the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel  for  itself,  and  to  contribute  to  the 
evangelizing  of  the  world  ;   but  instead  of  one  self-supporting 

^  Proceediui^s,  etc.,  p.  i6. 


1 1 8  The  Church  Review. 

Church,  this  town  has  five  sickly  organizations^  two  or  three  of 
which  are  sustained  by  some  Missionary  Board.  One  of  these 
Churches  has  a  steeple  surmounted  with  the  cross,  the  common 
symbol  of  Christianity;  the  others,  if  they  have  steeples  at  all, 
have  crowned  them  with  a  weather-cock.  All  these  Churches 
claim  to  be  Christian ;  but  they  all  bear  denominational  names, 
and  each  is  a  rival  of  the  others.  Now,  the  evil  of  this  state 
of  things  does  not  consist  only  nor  chiefly  in  its  waste  of 
Christian  resources;  but  the  chief  evil  is  its  demoralizing  effect 
upon  religious  experience  and  Christian  character.  It  narrows 
men's  souls  by  concentrating  on  a  sect  the  sympathies  and 
affections  which  ought  to  expand  upon  the  whole  Body  of 
Christ;  and  this  effect  is  the  most  shrivelling  when  men  suc- 
ceed in  deluding  themselves  into  the  belief  that  their  sect  is 
the  Body  of  CHRIST.  It  creates  false  tests  and  standards  of 
personal  piety.  It  mars  the  symmetrical  growth  of  the  soul  in 
the  knowledge  of  CHRIST  by  magnifying  certain  doctrines  to 
the  neglect  or  denial  of  others.  The  notion  that  it  is  the  mis- 
sion of  different  denominations  to  bear  witness  to  partiailar 
phases  of  Divine  truth,  might  be  well  enough  if  the  people  to 
whom  this  witness  is  borne  were  brought  under  the  influence 
of  all  the  witnesses.  But  to  subject  one  Christian  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Divine  Sovereignty,  and  another  to  the  insistence  upon 
human  freedom,  cultivates  two  different  types  of  character, 
neither  of  which  is  according  to  the  truth.  The  idea  of  a 
"witness-bearing  Church," — that  is,  a  body  of  Christians  with 
a  special  Divine  commission  to  bear  testimony  against  other 
bodies  of  CJiristians,  —  while  it  is  pleaded  in  defence  of  denomina- 
tionalism,  is  in  fact  one  of  the  worst  fruits  of  the  system. 

The  effect  of  the  system  upon  the  Sacraments  is  no  less  to  be 
deplored.  It  obscures  the  true  meaning  of  these  holy  ordi- 
nances by  contracting  the  Table  of  the  LORU  to  the  close  com- 
munion of  a  party  in  this  Church,  and  by  making  baptism  the 
badge  of  a  sect;  so  that  one  says,  "  I  was  baptized  an  Episcopa- 
lian,'' and  another,  "  I  was  baptized  a  Presbyterian^'  and  another, 
*'  I  was  baptized  a  Baptist."  The  effect  of  denominationalism 
upon  the  ministry  is  no  less  deplorable.  It  too  often  degrades 
the  servant  and  ambassador  of  CHRIST  into  the  hired  man  of  a 
voluntary  association,  and  suspends  his  reputation  and  influence 
upon  his  success  in  making  proselytes  from  other  "  societies.'* 
That  minister  must  be  a  strong  man,  who,  in  adjusting  his  work 


Christian  Reunion,  1 1 9 

to  such  conditions,  docs  not  lose  somewhat  of  the  spirit  of  his 
hif'"h  commission,  and  shrivel  his  own  mind  to  the  dimensions 
of  a  Gossipy 

These  evils  arc  greatly  agL^ravated  by  their  complication  with 
social  distinctions  and  family  pride.  Denominational  lines,  in 
such  communities  as  we  have  described,  are  very  apt  to  follow 
the  lines  of  class  distinctions,  and  to  deepen  them  with  "  the 
Gospel  plough."  Religious  societies  become  social  clubs,  and 
get  rid  of  the  question  about  seating  the  poor  man  in  vile  rai- 
ment by  making  it  practically  certain  that  he  will  not  come  into 
the  same  assembly  with  the  man  in  goodly  apparel  and  a  gold 
ring.  "  The  Salvation  Army,"  or  any  other  outside  effort,  is 
good  enough  for  him.  And  so  we  look  with  complacency  upon 
the  spasmodic  movements  of  zeal  without  knowledge,  and  even 
patronize  them  from  a  distance,  as  a  salve  to  our  conscience, 
not  perceiving  that  the  plea  for  their  necessity,  and  indeed  fact 
of  their  existence,  is  a  standing  reproach  to  the  Church. 

What  wonder,  if  in  this  state  of  things  one  half  of  our  settled 
ministers  in  all  denominations  are  unsettled  in  their  minds,  and 
waiting  for  "  a  call "  !  What  w^onder  if  the  doors  of  vacant 
Churches  are  besieged  by  an  army  of  candidates,  composed  not 
only  of  young  men  who  are  openly  looking  for  their  first  charge, 
but  largely  of  old  soldiers,  some  of  whom  by  unworthy  devices 
conceal  the  fact  of  their  candidacy?  Surely  if  we  need  a  civil- 
service  reform  in  the  State,  there  is  no  less  need  of  a  pastoral- 
service  reform  in  the  Church.  And  this  reform,  to  be  effective, 
must  begin  at  the  denominationalism  which  fills  the  land  with 
feeble  Churches  and  half-supported  ministers,  and  wastes  in 
sectarian  rivalries  what  ought  to  go  to  the  evangelizing  of  the 
world. 

The  first  and  most  important  step  toward  the  correction  of 
any  evil  is  to  see  and  acknowledge  its  existence ;  and  the 
second  is  like  unto  it,  —  an  earnest  desire  for  a  better  state  of 
things.  The  unity  of  Christendom  —  a  unity  that  the  world  can 
see,  and  be  convinced  by  it  that  the  Father  has  sent  His  only 
begotten  Son  —  is  to-day  a  longing  in  the  heart  and  a  prayer 
on  the  lips  of  multitudes  of  Christians.  We  hail  every  expres- 
sion of  such  desire  as  a  prophecy  of  its  fulfilment,  according  to 

'  Gossip  is  an  ecclesiastical  term,  —  a  corruption  of  Godsid.  It  was  first  applied  to 
sponsors  in  baptism,  and  its  development  into  its  present  popular  use  is  not  without 
historic  significance      See  Brewer's  Dictionary  of  Phrase  and  Fable 


I20  The  Church  Review. 

others  the  same  sincerity  we  claim  for  ourselves.  \Ve  do  not 
sympathize  with  those  who  view  with  squint  suspicion  the  pro- 
posals for  reunion  by  the  American  Episcopal  Church  indorsed 
by~the  Lambeth  Conference;  and  while  we  cannot  accept  the 
tem^  proposed  in  their  present  form  as  sufficient  and  practi- 
cable, we  do  heartily  embrace  and  respond  to  their  spirit. 
The  reunion  of  Christendom  is  a  sublime  idea,  an  inspiring 
hope.  It  is  not  necessary  to  the  indulgence  of  this  hope  to 
forecast  the  precise  form  of  its  fulfilment;  and  therefore  we 
need  not  exclude  from  its  embrace  any  of  those  throughout  the 
world  who  profess  the  true  religion.  The  best  things  in  the 
world  are  not  viade  ;  they  grow.  The  unification  of  Christen- 
dom, as  a  whole,  or  in  part,  cannot  be  accomplished  by  bargains 
and  contracts  between  rival  sects ;  neither  can  it  be  effected 
by  the  absorption  of  one  denomination  under  the  distinctive 
forms  of  another.  The  Romanist  may  cry,  **  Lay  aside  your 
private  judgment,  and  submit  to  the  infallible  Pope."  The 
Episcopalian  may  say,  "  Come  and  be  ordained  by  our  bishops ;  " 
the  Baptist  may  say,  "  Come  and  be  immersed ;  "  the  Presby- 
terian may  say,  *'  We  acknowledge  the  validity  of  your  orders 
and  sacraments  ;  only  accept  our  Calvinism,  and  we  will  be  one ;  '* 
and  tlie  ]\IetJiodist  may  respond,  "  Give  up  your  Calvinism  and 
accept  our  doctrine  of  free  grace;"  but  what  do  all  these 
invitations  amount  to?  They  cannot  be  accepted.  Men  can- 
not and  ought  not  to  renounce  their  personal  convictions  of 
truth.  If  you  should  dissolve  all  Christian  denominations  to- 
day, it  would  create  not  union,  but  anarchy.  If  you  should 
renounce  all  creeds,  the  result  would  be,  not  a  broader  faith,  but 
a  confusion  of  tongues.  Is  there,  then,  no  practicable  way  in 
which  we  may  work  toward  the  fulfilment  of  our  hopes?  Yes, 
certainly.  We  can  hold  to  our  distinctive  forms,  whether  of 
discipline  or  of  worship ;  but  we  can  hold  the  form  in  subordi- 
nation to  the  substance.  We  can  hold  our  distinctive  creeds 
until  the  time  comes  when  they  can  be  safely  laid  aside,  mean- 
while recognizing  CHRIST,  the  incarnate  Word,  as  above  all 
written  words*  human  and  Divine,  the  confession  of  faith  in 
Him  as  above  all  creed-subscriptions,  and  the  Catholic  Church, 
which  is  His  Body,  as  above  all  Christian  denominations.  If 
these  principles  are  accepted,  not  in  word  only,  but  in  power, 
their  dominance  will  show  itself.  There  are  three  directions 
in  which  they  may  work  themselves  out  gradually  but  mightily, 


Christian  Rctinion,  1 2 1 

like  the  dawning  of  the  day,  —  Recognition,  Co-opcr^tion,  and 
Federation. 

I.  Recognition.  The  Church  of  Rome  is  the  only  Christian 
denomination  which  officially  claims  to  be  the  Church  in  any 
exclusive  sense;  and  this  claim,  coupled  with  her  denial  of  any 
distinction  between  the  Church  as  visible  and  invisible,  neces- 
sarily precludes  the  Church  standing,  the  Christian  character, 
and  the  salvation  of  all  who  do  not  acknowledge  her  authority 
and  participate  in  her  sacraments.  In  this  she  is  terribly  logi- 
cal and  consistent.  But  what  is  to  hinder  any  and  all  Protestant 
denominations  from  acknowledging  one  another  individually  and 
collectively  as  belonging  to  the  Church  of  CHRIST,  and  treating 
one  another  accordingly?  Theoretically,  and  aside  from  the 
sectarian  spirit  of  which  we  are  all  more  or  less  guilty,  tlicre  are 
only  two  obstacles  in  the  way,  —  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  the 
mode  of  ordination  to  the  ministry.  But  that  these  are  not 
insuperable  obstacles  to  mutual  recognition  is  evident;  because 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  validity  of  the  sacraments  depends 
upon  the  specific  mode  of  their  administration,  and  the  au- 
thority of  the  ministry  to  administer  them,  and  their  consequent 
efficacy,  depend  upon  a  particular  mode  of  ordination  to  the 
ministry,  it  is  not  credible  that  CiTRIST  and  His  Apostles  should 
fail  to  leave  on  record  specific  instructions  which  would  prevent 
the  possibility  of  mistake  upon  the  subject.  It  may  not  be 
possible  even  for  GOD  to  state  an  abstract  doctrine  in  human 
language  so  that  all  human  minds  will  apprehend  it  alike ;  but 
there  is  no  such  difficulty  in  the  way  of  describing  an  act  to  be 
performed  by  human  hands.  If  CHRIST  was  immersed  Himself 
and  meant  all  His  disciples  to  follow  His  example  in  this  respect, 
and  if  immersion  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  baptism,  why  did 
He  not  say  so?  Why  is  it  not  so  written  in  explicit  terms?  If 
any  one  answers,  "  He  did  say  so,  and  it  is  so  written,"  we  re- 
spond, "  We  cannot  see  it"  And  the  fact  that  millions  of  the 
holiest  and  wisest  men  in  all  the  Christian  ages,  whose  candor 
and  love  of  truth  are  beyond  question,  have  not  been  able  to 
see  it,  is  proof  conclusive  that  it  is  not  there.  The  same  obser- 
vations apply  to  ordination  to  the  ministry.  If  Paul  and  the 
other  Apostles  believed  that  no  ordination  is  valid  unless  it  be 
performed  by  the  hands  of  a  Diocesan  bishop,  distinct  from 
and  superior  in  office  to  ordinary  ministers,  and  that  the  suc- 
cession of  such  ordinations  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 


122  The  Church  Review, 

visible  Church  and  to  the  efficacy  of  her  Sacraments,  why  did 
they  not  say  so,  and  record  the  doctrine  in  expHcit  terms  for 
the  instruction  of  all  ages?  The  fact  that  men  equally  learned 
and  honest  differ  on  the  subject,  is  proof  conclusive  that  there 
is  no  such  record.  Wlien  our_Episcopal  brethren_[r^tJid£o_ver- 
ture  for  reunion  insist  upon  *' the ///V/^nV,  meaning  the  Z>/^r^j^«, 
Ep^iscopate"  as  equally  essential  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  and 
the  Holy  Sacraments,  we  remind  them  that  there  is  a  PrcJiistoric 
Episcopate  which  is  not  Diocesan,  and  that  by  their  own  ac- 
knowledgment what  they  call  the  Historic  Episcopate  is  not 
explicitly  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  which  "  contain  all  things 
necessary  to  salvation,  and  are  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard 
of  Faith."  Oh,  is  it  not  pitiful  in  the  sight  of  GOD  and  angels 
that  the  mere  mode  of  administering  two  outward  ordinances, 
concerning  which  CHRIST  has  given  no  explicit  instructions, 
should  be  magnified  into  partition  walls  between  His  disciples, 
for  whom  He  prays  that  they  all  may  be  one?  And  the  pity 
becomes  more  profound  when  w^e  consider  the  fact  that  these 
two  obstacles  have  not  always  and  everywhere  been  regarded 
as  insurmountable.  It  is  only  in  this  country  that  the  Baptist 
denomination  makes  its  mode  of  baptism  a  warrant  for  "  close 
communion."  It  is  only  since  the  days  of  Charles  I.  and  his 
prime  minister,  Archbishop  Laud,  that  the  Episcopal  denomi- 
nation has  refused  to  recognize  the  validity  of  other  ordina- 
tions beside  its  own. 

We  shall  be  reminded  that  now  and  here  these  partition  walls 
are  not  so  high  as  to  prevent  the  different  denominations  from 
looking  over  tJicm  and  mutually  recognizing  one  another  as 
Christians.  We  admit  this,  and  rejoice  in  the  growing  spirit  of 
inter-denominational  comity,  which  is  so  characteristic  of  our 
times.  But  it  is  the  unity  of  the  visible  Church  that  we  are 
contending  for.  We  long  for  Church  recognition  as  the  only 
legitimate  and  permanent  embodiment  of  Christian  fellowship. 
Mutual  recognition  aside  from  the  organic  life  and  work  of  the 
Churches,  performed  as  a  holiday  parade,  and  upon  platforms 
erected  for  that  special  purpose,  is  little  more  than  a  confession 
of  the  evils  of  denominationalism.  It  does  not  apply  any  practi- 
cal remedy;  sweet  and  pleasant  in  itself,  it  is  only  a  sentiment, 
and  unless  it  is  embodied  in  deeds,  it  will  evaporate  in  the  words 
that  express  it.  If  it  goes  no  farther,  its  practical  effect  is  to 
disparage  the  Church,  and  to  alienate  thinking  men  from  her. 


Christian  Reuniuji.  123 

life  and  her  work.     \\'_h^it  we  need  is  such  a  mutual  reeogiiitifjn 
as  will  lead  to  co-operation. 

2.  And  this  Co-operation  must  be  within  and  not  outside 
of  the  visible  Church.  We  do  not  undertake  t(j  fcjrecast 
its  methods ;  but  we  have  a  very  distinct  prevision  of  its  re- 
sults. First  of  all,  it  will  prevent  the  needless  multiplication  of 
Churches,  and  the  waste  of  Christian  means  and  energies  in 
particular  localities.  Secondly,  it  will  elevate  the  ministry,  and 
cultivate  a  nobler  type  of  Christian  character,  by  laying  aside 
petty  rivalries  and  strifes  about  words  and  forms  of  worship. 
whose  only  effect  is  the  perversion  of  the  hearers,  and  by  in- 
sisting upon  the  great  central  facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
Thirdly,  it  will  add  immense  resources  and  give  a  new  impulse 
to  the  missionary  work  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  chief  object 
of  her  existence ;  and  it  will  give  new  efficacy  to  that  work,  by 
presenting  a  united  front  and  lifting  up  high  above  all  sectarian 
colors  the  common  banner  of  Christianity  before  the  heathen 
world. 

3.  As  both  an  expression  and  a  practical  means  of  pro- 
moting this  recognition  and  co-operation,  we  are  heartily  in 
favor  of  Federation  between  any  and  all  denominations  of 
Christians.  " 

One  thing  seems  clear,  —  that  the  unification  of  the  Church 
cannot  be  accomplished  by  one  denomination  working  upon 
another  from  without.  Proselytism,  whether  by  argument  or 
persuasion,  is  a  waste  of  time  and  strength.  The  conv^erts 
made  by  such  means  are  far-fetched  and  of  little  worth  ;  neither, 
again,  can  the  denominations  be  unified  by  any  power  separate 
from  and  above  them  all.  The  wrecks  of  that  experiment  are 
scattered  along  the  whole  path  of  history.  The  time  for  world 
empires,  whether  of  the  Church  or  the  State,  is  past.  The  unity 
of  the  Church  can  be  effected  only  by  a  vital  power  dwelling 
in  every  part  and  common  to  all.  That  power  can  be  none 
other  than  the  HoLY  Spirit.  But  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  Nature 
and  in  grace,  works  by  means.  Cosmos,  "the  beautiful  order," 
was  not  imposed  upon,  but  evolved  out  of  Chaos.     The  Spirit 

With  mighty  wings  outspread, 
Dove-like,  sat  brooding  on  the  vast  abyss 
And  made  //  pregnant. 

The  earth  and  the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly. 


124  '^^^  Church  Review. 

The  unification  of  Christian  denominations  must  be  attained 
by  bringing  out  into  clearer  recognition  and  adjusting  to  new 
relations  that  which  is  already  in  them.  The  first  stage  in  the 
process  is  the  practical  acknowledgment  that  the  things  in  which 
they  agree,  whether  in  doctrine,  discipline,  or  worship,  are  not 
only  more  important  in  their  bearing,  but  more  and  greater  in 
themselves,  than  the  things  in  which  they  differ.  The  convic- 
tion of  this  truth  comes  home  to  every  candid  mind  in  the 
careful  study  of  the  creeds  of  Christendom.  But  the  thought 
of  theologians  and  scholars  needs  to  be  embodied  in  a  visible 
form  in  order  to  be  apprehended  by  the  popular  mind.  What 
more  simple  or  safe  embodiment  of  the  idea  can  be  invented 
than  the  Federation  of  Christian  denominations?  The  possi- 
bilities of  such  Federation  are  unlimited.  It  does  not  involve 
the  surrender  of  sectarian  peculiarities,  but  simply  the  subordi- 
nation of  them  for  a  time  to  that  which  is  confessedly  higher 
and  more  important.  Under  any  plan  which  may  be  adopted, 
it  will  have  this  great  advantage,  that  practice  will  go  hand  in 
hand  with  theory,  and  the  experiment  reach  no  farther  than 
experience  shall  warrant.  Beginning  on  a  small  scale,  and  em- 
bracing at  first  only  the  subdivisions  of  sects  holding  the  same 
system  of  doctrine  and  order,  and  separated  by  distinctions  as 
small  as  the  difference  between  a  psalm  and  a  hymn,  or  between 
the  sound  of  a  pitch-pipe  and  the  swell  of  an  organ,  who  shall 
say  that  it  will  not  enlarge  its  circumference  and  intensify  its 
assimilating  power  until  it  embraces  the  Christian  world  in  its 
circumference?  It  is  easy  to  sit  in  the  seat  of  the  polemic,  sur- 
mising difficulties  and  predicting  failure;  but  it  is  far  nobler 
to  hope  for  and  hasten  unto  the  blessed  time  when  out  of  many 
folds  there  shall  be  one  flock  and  one  Shepherd.  The  greatest 
living  poet  sang  in  his  youth  of  a  poetical  millennium,  — 

When  the  war-drums  throb  no  longer,  and  the  battle-flags  are  furled 
In  the  parHament  of  men,  the  federation  of  the  world. 

And  though  the  vision  has  not  yet  come  to  pass,  who  will 
say  there  has  been  no  progress  toward  its  fulfilment?  Behind 
and  above  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  is  the  Kingdom  of  our 
Lord  and  His  CHRIST.  Of  the  increase  of  His  government  and 
peace  there  shall  be  no  end.  Who  shall  say  how  near  may  be 
the  time  when  the  isles  which  wait  for  His  law  shall  hail  the 
light  of  His  coming,  and  the  troubled  sea  moaning  on  every 


Christian  Reunion.  125 

shore  shall  hear  and  be  hushed  at  the  stillness  of  His  voice? 
And  above  all,  who  will  refuse  to  do  what  he  can  to  prepare  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  to  exalt  every  valley,  to  make  low  every 
mountain,  to  gather  out  the  stones  and  make  smooth  the  rough 
places  in  the  highway  of  our  GoD?  I  am  a  Presbyterian,  not 
only  by  birth,  but  by  conviction,  and  yield  to  no  man  in  loyalty 
to  the  denomination  in  whose  service  my  life  has  been  spent, 
and  in  whose  bosom  I  hope  to  die;  but  I  do  not  expect  to  be 
a  Presbyterian  nor  anything  of  the  kind  in  heaven.  And  as 
my  sun  grows  larger  and  more  mellow  toward  its  setting,  I 
would  gladly  exchange  everything  that  is  not  essentially  Chris- 
tian for  a  few  of  the  days  of  heaven  on  earth,  in  the  unity  and 
peace  of  the  Church  of  GoD,  which  He  hath  purchased  with  His 
own  blood. 

Henrv  J.  Van  Dyke. 

Brooklyn. 


The  Rev.  Thomas  Armitage,  D.D.  [Baptist],  New  York 

City. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir: 

YOU  ask  how  far  the  Basis  of  Christian  Reunion,  made 
by  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
America,  and  the  Lambeth  Conference  in  England,  is  likely  to 
commend  itself  to  the  approbation  of  the  various  Christian 
Communions? 

There  is  great  room  for  fear  that  its  influence  for  practical 
benefit  will  be  very  limited ;  and  chiefly  because  it  makes  no 
attempt  to  remove  the  radical  differences  which  exist  between 
the  Communions,  and  to  which  they  severally  cling  with  all  the 
tenacity  which  the  human  conscience  can  command.  No  sub- 
ject is  worthy  of  more  patient  thought  than  that  submitted  by 
these  two  bodies  of  learned  and  venerable  men.  They  breathe 
the  spirit  of  the  age  in  striving  for  a  higher  unity  than  has  been 
yet  attained,  and  express  a  strong  conviction  that  the  present 
fragmentary  state  of  things  is  unsatisfactory,  and  so  far,  their 
loving  aim  at  oneness  must  bring  the  several  Communions  into 
that  closer  relationship  which  follows  a  better  knowledge  of 
one  another.  No  broad  and  catholic  meeting-plan  can  be  found 
for  them,  where  the  truest  mutual  respect  is  not  cultivated,  where 


126  The  Church  Review, 

a  holy  self-respect  is  not  retained,  and  where  the  mutual  recog- 
nition of  Christlikeness  is  denied.  To  these  good  influences  the 
suggestions  of  these  godly  thinkers  will  contribute.  Yet  it 
requires  little  precedent  sobriety  of  mind  to  see,  that  the  present 
disjointed  condition  of  these  bodies  disqualifies  them  for  pro- 
moting organic  oneness.  The  elements  of  strife  and  division 
must  cease  to  exist  in  the  bosom  of  each  Communion,  so  that 
each  is  at  peace  with  itself,  before  it  can  blend  with  the  others 
in  a  common  unity.  Those  discords  which  threaten  so  often 
to  tear  each  individual  denomination  asunder,  arise  out  of  a 
moral  condition  which  cannot  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the 
spirit,  much  less  with  any  given  form,  of  oneness.  Instead  of 
moving  sweetly,  as  in  the  music  of  the  spheres,  the  exterior 
bond  of  unity,  in  such  cases,  often  becomes  grievous.  That 
bond  does  not  attract  to  one  centre,  so  that  there  is  no  real 
fellowship,  where  it  should  be  found  in  its  strojigest  and  tender- 
est  forms.  All  this  is  evinced  in  the  various  factions  which  now 
mark  all  the  great  Protestant  bodies,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
Roman   Catholic  Communions. 

True  fellowship  is  deep  and  thoroughly  inter-dependent,  with 
great  inwardness,  but  litde  surface.  It  implies  all  that  makes 
oneness  of  mind  and  fundamental  soul-sympathy.  Many  sound 
and  true  men  are  longing  with  enthusiasm  for  something  to 
which  they  can  give  no  name.  Hence,  when  they  meet  with 
genuine  Christian  kindness,  for  want  of  a  more  appropriate 
cognomen,  they  call  it  Christian  Unity,  while  still  it  is  not  clear 
what  is  wanted,  much  less  does  it  appear  how  exactly  it  can  be 
attained.  The  true-hearted  are  feeling  their  way  to  answer  the 
question :  "  How  can  the  disjecta  membra  of  God's  family  come 
back  into  one  grand  unity?"  In  the  formal,  the  ceremonial, 
the  verbal  basis  of  union,  there  is  no  depth,  no  warmth,  nor 
can  it  be  made  an  effectual  antidote  to  division.  In  such  union 
there  may  be  beauty,  even  sentiment  and  some  truth,  but  there 
is  no  fervent  fellowship.  Such  methods  only  lead  us  into  that 
loose  way  of  talking  about  Christian  unity,  where  there  is  in 
reality  no  abiding  agreement.  We  often  mistake  manly  kind- 
ness, and  that  gentlemanly  refinement  which  permit  us  to  wor- 
ship peacefully  in  the  same  place,  for  the  oneness  which  is 
essentially  true  unity.  This  may  hide  from  us  the  sin  and  the 
shame  of  disturbing  disunion,  but  it  does  not  work  in  us  that 
for  which  our  LORD  prayed,  although  we  may  all  be  numbered 


Christian  Reunion.  127 

in  the  same  ecclesiastical  fold:  "That  they  all  may  be  one,  as 
Thou,  r'ather,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  als(j  may  be 
in  us." 

The  Lambeth  Conference,  in  its  kindl)-  spirit,  proj)osetl  the 
Bible  as  the  "rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith,"  with  the 
Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed  "as  the  sufficient  state- 
ment of  the  Christian  Faith."  lint  in  their  i)resent  divided 
state,  all  the  great  Protestant  bodies  verbally  hold  to  the  Hible 
as  the  only  standard  of  truth,  and  how  can  it  more  perfectly 
reunite  them  to  reaffirm  this  position?  As  to  the  acceptance 
of  the  two  creeds  named,  being  "  the  sufficient  statement  of  the 
Christian  Faith,"  those  creeds  came  into  existence,  especially 
the  Nicene,  as  the  result  of  long  and  bitter  divisions ;  and  as 
they  never  have  wrought  union  heretofore,  by  what  power  can 
they  accomplish  it  at  this  late  day?  Besides  this,  neither  of 
these  creeds  state  the  entire  body  of  Christian  doctrine,  about 
which  the  Christian  world  is  divided ;  and  some  of  the  tenets 
on  which  one  denomination  of  Christians  is  divided  from  an- 
other are  not  noticed  in  either  of  them.  The  "  Basis  of  the 
Bishops  recommends  that  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
shall  be  administered  in  the  use  of  Christ's  words  of  insti- 
tution, and  of  the  elements  ordained  by  Him."  In  the  latter 
centuries,  these  two  ordinances  have  been  the  subjects  of  more 
controversy  than  any  other  two  points  in  Christianity,  while 
they  were  vital  in  the  ancient  times,  between  the  Latin  and 
Greek  Churches.  Yet  the  bishops  submit  nothing  touching 
the  manner  in  which  the  Apostolic  Churches  administered  the 
ordinances.  So  also  of  the  "  Historic  Episcopate,  locally 
adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the  varying 
needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples."  But  surely  they  would  not 
have  all  the  various  views  and  methods  now  held  in  all  the 
Communions  blended  into  one,  from  the  archbishop  down  to 
the  simple  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  and  call  that  union, 
simply  for  the  sake  of  calling  it  so.  This,  of  itself,  would  create 
such  contentions  as  have  never  yet  existed  in  a  Christian  body, 
so  that  division  would  become  more  rife  than  ever.  In  a  real 
union  of  the  several  Christian  bodies,  somebody  must  give  up 
something ;  but  the  bishops  fail  to  tell  us  what  they  will  give 
up  themselves,  or  what  their  Churches  will  yield,  nor  is  it  clear 
what  points  they  wish  others  to  abandon  in  non-Episcopal 
Communions. 


128  The  Church  Review, 

All  the  different  denominations  of  Christians  hold  their  right 
to  separate  existence  on  the  ground  that  they  represent  some 
Scripture  truth  which  is  not  clearly  represented  in  some  other 
Church;  for  this  reason  they  came  into  being  and  have  remained 
as  distinct  bodies,  most  of  them  at  great  cost  of  suffering,  and 
some  of  them  at  a  greater  cost  of  life,  in  martyrdom.  Who  of 
them  are  to  abandon  this  position,  and  what  supposed  truths 
are  they  to  cast  aside,  in  order  to  secure  the  proffered  boon  of 
organic  ecclesiastical  union?  Neither  meekness,  love,  nor  fidel- 
ity, but  only  discord  and  distraction  would  follov/  such  reunion 
as  this,  and  at  once  the  division  of  tongues  would  turn  Zion 
into  Babel.  The  various  Communions  are  divided  now  in 
respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  and  they  never  can  be 
united  in  one  body  until  some  of  them  are  convinced  that  they 
do  not  interpret  the  Bible  properly.  Who,  then,  s-hall  work 
that  change,  and  on  what  platform  shall  it  be  wrought?  One- 
ness on  vital  truths  cannot  bring  this  about  so  long  as  a  large 
number  of  relative  truths  remain  in  dispute. 

The  prayer  of  our  blessed  REDEEMER  throws  a  light  upon 
the  nature  and  methods  of  oneness,  among  Christian  believers', 
which  the  Lambeth  Conference  does  not.  From  this  we  may 
catch  a  powerful  illumination,  because  the  oneness  of  CHRIST 
our  Saviour  with  the  Father  is  to  be  the  type  of  our  unity 
with  one  another.  Here,  uniformity  is  made  the  mere  negation 
of  unity.  The  FATHER  and  the  Son  are  one  in  likeness  and  dis- 
position, one  in  character  and  love,  one  in  aim  and  endeavor. 
When  reciprocal  fellowship  between  believers  springs  from  an 
inward  life,  from  unity  of  conviction,  purpose,  and  hope,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  can  there  be  a  perfect  agreement  in  Christian 
doctrine  and  duty.  *'  This  unity,"  says  Alford,  '*  has  its  true 
and  only  ^r^^/;z<^  in  faith  in  CHRIST,  through  the  Word  of  GoD, 
as  delivered  by  the  Apostles,  and  is,  therefore,  not  the  mere 
outward  uniformity,  nor  can  such  uniformity  produce  it."  As 
men,  believers  have  already  a  oneness  of  essence  in  themselves, 
as  the  Father  and  the  Son  had  essential  unity.  But  believers 
have  not  a  oneness  in  interest,  thought,  feeling,  and  action,  con- 
cerning truth  and  salvation,  as  have  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
''That  they  also  may  be  in  us,"  and  so  are  one  among  themselves. 
Our  Lord  was  not  speaking  of  the  absolute  unity  of  the  God- 
head, or  He  could  not  have  prayed  that  believers  should  be 
taken  into  that  unity ;   but  He  does  pray  that  we  may  be  taken 


Christian  Rcunio7i.  129 

into  the  oneness  of  the  FATHER  and  the  SON  in  all  that  re- 
lates to  the  truth  and  to  a  life  of  holiness,  under  the  reign  of 
truth.  That  unity  may  be  outstandini^  and  visible  in  the  spirit- 
ual life  of  Christ's  disciples,  in  their  purity,  zeal,  and  conse- 
cration. When  these  are  seen,  then  "  the  world  will  believe 
that  Thou  has  sent  Me."  But  this  can  never  be  done  by  a 
formal,  creedal,  mechanical  unity  of  ecclesiastical  agreement. 
The  entire  Christian  world  is  laid  under  debt  to  the  bishops 
for  their  devout  utterances  in  the  direction  of  reunion  among 
the  Communions,  but  their  plan  cannot  work  an  answer  to 
the_j)rayer  of  Jesus.  If  these  noble  men  will  show  us  how 
His  intercessory  prayer  can  be  answered  by  the  common  co- 
operation of  all  Christians,  then,  but  not  till  then,  may  we  hope 
to  see  the  reunion  of  all  Christians  in  Church  relations. 

Thomas  Armitage. 


The  Rev.  Henry  M.  Dexter,  D.D.,  Editor  of  the   Con- 

gregationalist,  BOSTON. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir: 

IT  seems  to  me  that  Christian  Reunion  must  be  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter;  and  that  such  reunion 
is  perfectly  possible  under  any  outward  circumstances,  and  will 
be  attained  whenever  the  HOLY  SPIRIT  shall  so  work  mightily 
upon  the  hearts  of  all  believers  as  to  lead  them  to  forget  those 
lesser  things  as  to  which  they  differ,  in  the  joy  and  strength  of 
remembering  those  larger  things  in  which  they  are  at  one. 
UoWal  fxev  6vr)ToU  jXaxrcraL,  fiia  3'  aOavdroio-iv.  Ought  not 
those  portions  of  the  varying  polities  of  CHRIST'S  followers 
which  seem  inharmonious  and  immiscible  to  be  regarded  as 
the  devise  of  the  Fall  to  theology;  as  the  many  languages 
of  earth  are  legacies  from  Babel  —  like  those  to  be  outgrown 
whenever  that  which  is  perfect  is  come  and  that  which  is  in 
part  shall  be  done  away? 

Meanwhile  what  is  better  —  what  indeed  can  honestly  and 
honorably  be  otherwise  done  —  than  that  each  believer  follow, 
as  to  Church  detail,  such  Divine  leadings  as  he  is  conscious 
of  within  himself,  in  his  own  essential  tastes  and  convictions? 
At  the  same  time  let  him  feel  that  so  long  as  he  does  so  in 
perfect  love  and  charity  toward  all  his  Christian  brethren  whose 

9 


I30 


The  Church  Review. 


>J 


/ 


like  endeavor  may  not  lead  them  precisely  to  reproduce  his 
own  experience,  he  is  nevertheless  in  real  union  with  them  and 
they  with  him ;  as  he  that  hath  faith  to  eat  all  things  may  be 
in  perfect  love  and  charity  with  his  weak  brother  that  eateth 
herbs,  provided  he  judge  him  not,  and  acknowledge  that  the 
Lord  hath  received  him. 

I  have  never  been  able  to  believe  that  the  Great  Head  of 
the  Church  intends  all  Christian  people  to  be  of  one  earthly 
fold,  only  of  one  heavenly.  He  has  endowed  and  conditioned 
them  too  diversely  for  such  comfortable  unity.  The  sedate, 
order-loving,  noise-hating  believer,  and  the  restless,  itinerative 
shouting  Christian  only  discomfort  and  disturb  each  other  by 
seeking  to  be  formally  at  one.  Each  is  happier,  each  will  be 
better  edified,  and  be  more  drawn  out  to  a  larger  work,  when 
associated  mainly  with  those  who  are  like  himself,  and  when 
positioned  externally  to  his  mind.  The  scout  with  his  long  rifle, 
the  artillery-man  serving  his  great  gun,  the  cavalry-man  with 
his  flashing  sabre,  the  marine  with  his  musket,  and  the  common 
sailor  with  his  hand-spike  on  the  war-ship,  each  may  serve  his 
country  with  as  true  a  heart  and  as  valiant  a  hand  as  the  other. 
And  all  together,  so  only  they  be  equally  obedient  under  one 
controlling  leadership,  and  alike  determined  that  it  shall  be 
victorious,  are  more  useful  than  if,  with  identical  weapons  and 
drill,  massed  together.  If  the  whole  body  were  an  eye,  where 
were  the  hearing?  If  the  whole  were  hearing,  where  were  the 
smelling?  But  now  hath  GOD  set  the  members,  each  one  of 
them,  in  the  body  even  as  it  pleases  Him.  And  if  they  were 
all  one  member,  where  were  the  body?  But  now  they  are 
many  members,  but  one  body. 

With  these  views  I  can  but  regard  the  "  Basis  for  Christian 
Reunion  proposed  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  "  as  conceived 
in,  and  designed  for,  a  lower  than  the  true  and  only  possible 
plane  of  such  infinitely  to  be  desired  reunion. 

Yet  to  express,  as  has  been  most  courteously  desired,  some 
opinion  as  to  how  far  the  religious  Communion  to  which  I 
belong  could  accept  that  proposed  basis,  I  desire  to  say  that 
so  far  as  I  have  knowledge  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Congregationalism,  and  some  familiarity  with  the  general  feel- 
ing and  judgment  of  the  body,  it  seems  to  me  safe  to  state:  — 

I.  That  Congregationalists  can  heartily  accept  the  first  and 
third  articles  of  that  basis,  which  make  the  Holy  Scriptures  to 


Ch  rislia  7i  Rcu  n  io7i . 


131 


"  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,"  and  to  be  "  the  rule 
and  ultimate  standard  of  Faith;"  and  which  accept  the  two 
Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  "  ministered 
with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's  words  of  institution,  and  of  the 
elements  ordained   by   Him." 

2.  Th^at,  "for  substance  of  doctrine  "  —  using  that  phrase  to 
suggest  that  the  lack  felt  in  these  formula,-,  if  any,  would  be  in 
the  direction  of  understatement  rather  than  overstatement  of  the 
contained  truth  —  Congregationalists  could  accept  the  second 
article,  which  names  "  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  a  Baptismal 
Symbol,"  and  *'  the  Nicene  Creed  as  a  sufficient  statement  of 
the  Christian  Faith." 

3.  As  to  the  remaining  fourth  article,  "the  Historic  Episco- 
pate, locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to 
the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  GoD  into 
the  unity  of  His  Church,"  nothing  could  better  express  the 
conviction  of  Congregationalists,  if  only  they  be  permitted  to 
interpret  the  phrase  the  "  Historic  Episcopate  "  as  intending 
its  early  sense,  as  distinguished  from  the  later  superinduced 
significance.  Like  the  New  Testament  Revisers,  they  regard 
the  word  eV/cTAroTro?  in  the  four  instances  of  its  use  in  the  Acts 
and  Epistles  as  purely  synonymous  with  the  word  translated 
"  presbyter,"  or  "  pastor."  And  they  understand  the  lately 
discovered  AIAAXH  TfLN  AflAEKA  AUO^TOAflN  [lines 
277-281],  "Now  appoint  for  yourselves  bishops  and  deacons 
worthy  of  the  LORD,  men  meek  and  not  avaricious,  and  up- 
right and  proved ;  for  they  too  render  you  the  service  of  the 
prophets  and  teachers,"  as  carrying  that  "  historic  sense  "  well 
along  into  the  second  century.  Moreover,  when  we  find 
Chrysostom  and  Jerome,  both  of  whom  died  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, the  one,  in  explanation  of  Paul's  words  [Hom.  Phil.  i.  i], 
answering  the  question,  "  Were  there  several  bishops  of  one 
city?"  by  saying,  "  Certainly  not,  but  he  callcth  the  presbyters 
so;  "  and  the  other  \_Ad Lang.  Epist.  c.  iP\  remarking,  Apostolus 
perspiciie  docet  eosdem  esse  presbyteros  quos  Episcopos,  w^e  are 
constrained  to  feel  that  we  should  do  right  to  decline,  by  the 
acceptance  of  the  Episcopate  which  should  exercise  authority 
beyond  that  scripturally  given  to  pastors  of  Churches,  to  become 
entangled  again  in  a  yoke  of  bondage  which  neither  our  fathers 
nor  we  were  able  to  bear.  We  would  not  indeed  much  object 
to  bishops  chosen  on  the  theory  of  an  Archbishop  of  Canter- 


132  The  Church  Review, 

bury  of  350  years  ago  [Cranmer,  Questions  and  Answers 
concerning  the  Sacraments,  etc.  9],  thus,  "Sometimes  the  peo- 
ple did  choose  such  as  they  thought  meet  thereunto ;  and  when 
any  were  appointed  or  sent  by  the  Apostles  or  others,  the  people 
of  their  own  voluntary  will,  with  thanks,  did  accept  them,  —  not 
for  the  supremity,  impery,  or  dominion  that  the  Apostles  had 
over  them  to  command  as  their  princes  or  masters ;  but  as 
good  people,  ready  to  obey  the  advice  of  good  counsellors, 
and  to  accept  anything  that  was  necessary  for  their  edification 
and  benefit." 

In  these  views  I  hope  it  is  not  irreverent  for  me,  not  animated 
by  an  overpowering  faith  in  the  success  of  a  movement  with 
which  yet  every  good  man  must  be  in  sympathy,  to  conclude  by 
adopting  S.  Paul's  hortation :  ''  Brethren,  let  each  man  wherein 
he  was  called,  therein  abide  with  God.  Art  thou  bound  under 
obligation  of  love  and  duty  unto  a  bishop,  seek  not  to  be 
loosed;  art  thou  loosed  from  a  bishop,  seek  not  a  bishop.  But 
and  if  led  in  conscience,  or  by  taste,  thou  do  so,  thou  hast  not 

sinned." 

Henry  M.  Dexter. 


The  Rev.  James  McCosh,   D.D.,   L.L.D.  [Presbyterian], 
Ex-President  of  Princeton  College. 

Federation  of  Evangelical  CJinrehes. 

I  TAKE  it  very  kind  that  the  Editor  of  the  CHURCH  REVIEW 
has  asked  me  to  write  on  Church  Reunion.  I  am  sorry  to 
be  obliged  to  begin  by  saying  that  I  do  not  see  any  prospect 
of  an  immediate  full  reunion.  I  am  not  to  inquire  who  are  to 
blame  for  this  state  of  things,  or  whether  we  may  not  all  be  so 
far  in  fault. 

As  requested,  I  have  weighed  carefully  the  overtures  proposed 
in  evident  kindness  by  the  Lambeth  Conference.  With  most  of 
them  there  would  be  a  general  accordance.  But  there  will  be  a 
decided  aversion  to  the  Fourth  Article  as  to  the  Historic  Epis- 
copate as  it  is  understood  by  the  Churches.  Churches  not 
Episcopal  interpret  it  as  meaning  that  their  ministers^"must  be 
reordained  before  they  can  be  admitted  into  the  united  Church. 
I  am  not  authorized  to  speak  for  my  own  Church,  the  Presby- 
terian, or  any  other  denomination.     But  from  a  large  acquaint- 


Christian  Reiinion,  133 

'^nce  with  the  Churches  of  Europe  and  America,  I  know,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  that  the^great  body  of  the  non-h^piscopal 
Churches  arc  not  pre[)ared  to  submit  to  these  conditions,  and 
that  it  is  utterly  useless  to  try  to  persuade  them  to  do  so.  In 
these  circumstances  I  have  been  led  to  inquire  whether,  thou<^h 
not  able  to  obtain  all  that  we  wish,  we  may  yet  secure  some  of 
the  most  valuable  advantages  of  a  union,  these  being  good  in 
themselves,  and  fitted  to  lead  to  something  farther  and  higher. 

If  we  cannot  have  an  incorporation  of  the  Churches,  let  us 
have  a  federation.  It  is  known  to  all  who  have  looked  around 
them  that  there  are  dense  districts  in  all  our  great  cities,  and 
they  are  increasing  in  number,  and  that  there  are  scattered 
people  in  our  villages  and  in  our  rural  districts,  East  and  West, 
North  and  South,  where  there  is  no  provision  for  taking  care  of 
the  immortal  souls  of  all,  rich  and  poor,  old  and  young.  This 
being  so,  as  is  known  and  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  it  follows 
that  every  professing  Christian,  every  congregation,  and  every 
Church  is  under  obligation  to  inquire  how  this  evil  is  to  be  met, 
and  Christ's  command  be  fulfilled  to  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature. 

In  the  plan  of  federation,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  a  min- 
ister's care  is  to  be  primarily  over  his  own  people,  and  he  may 
visit  them  wherever  they  reside,  and  do  good  among  them  in 
every  way  sanctioned  by  Scripture.  But  surely  his  duty  does 
not  end  there.  Like  his  MASTER,  he  has  to  seek  in  order  to  save 
that  which  is  lost.  Let  a  convenient  district  be  allotted  to  him 
of  which  he  has  special  charge,  say  of  five  hundred  or  one 
thousand  people,  where  his  office  is  to  secure  that  every  person 
knows  that  a  SAVIOUR  has  been  provided  for  sinners.  There 
need  be  no  compulsion  laid  on  ministers  to  undertake  this  work. 
Those  who  have  the  spirit  of  the  Saviour  will  offer  themselves 
willingly,  and  will  be  glad  to  find  that  instead  of  being  required 
to  scatter  their  energies  over  an  undefined  region,  there  is  a 
special  field  allotted  to  each.  The  minister  should  take  charge 
of  the  whole  machinery,  but  he  will  commonly  call  in  to  work 
with  him  all  his  Church  agency,  —  his  elders  and  deacons  and 
deaconesses,  his  Sabbath  School  teachers,  and  all  members  who 
are  willing  to  work;  and  where  his  congregation  is  large,  he 
should  have  a  paid  agent,  male  or  female,  to  visit  daily  among 
the  people.  In  this  way  CHRIST'S  message  of  mercy  will  be 
delivered  to  all,  —  to  the  forgotten  and  forlorn,  to  the  deserted 


134  ^^^  CIiMTch  Review, 

wife,  to  negfected  children,  to  the  bedridden,  to  those  in  sick- 
ness and  in  sorrow,  to  all  who  are  looking  forward  to  death,  to 
the  wanderer,  the  vagrant,  the  beggar,  the  outcast.  As  the 
most  difficult  work  of  all,  prayers  will  be  offered  and  oppoi- 
tunities  watched,  to  discover  a  way  in  which  the  Gospel  may 
find  an  entrance  into  the  dwellings  of  the  rich  and  proud  who 
will  not  wait  on  the  public  ministrations  of  the  Word, 

This  work  may  be  begun  by  a  few  ministers  agreeing  to  divide 
their  district  among  them.  As  it  advances,  the  country  will 
come  to  be  divided  into  districts,  — let  them  be  called  parishes 
after  the  ancient  usage,  —  and  the  whole  land  may  be  covered. 

This  plan  is  easily  understood,  and  is  perfectly  practicable. 
It  needs  only  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  ministers  in  order  to 
carry  it  out.  It  interferes  in  no  way  with  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  any  Church  or  any  individual  minister.  It  secures  one 
of  the  great  advantages  of  the  union  of  Churches,  that  Christ's 
salvation  be  known  to  every  one. 

In  unfolding  this  scheme  I  claim  no  originality,  I  take  no 
credit  to  myself.  The  plan  has  occurred  to  hundreds,  and  has 
been  carried  out  in  a  few  places.  What  is  needed  now  is  to 
have  it  executed  over  the  country.  It  was  adopted  by  the  early 
Church  before  it  was  divided  into  sects.  It  seems  to  me  to  be 
the  only  plan  available  in  the  present  divided  state  of  the 
Church.  It  has  been  continued  in  every  country  in  Europe ; 
let  it  be  adopted  in  America.  It  can  be  started  in  any  one 
district;   it  is  capable  of  being  spread  over  the  whole  country. 

Being  so  long  a  parish  minister  with  fourteen  hundred  com- 
municants, I  am  prepared  to  enter  into  details.  But  my  present 
desire  is  to  have  conferences  where  measures  may  be  proposed 
and  adopted  for  wisely  carrying  out  the  plan. 

James  McCosh. 


The  Rev.  John  Hall,  D.D.,  LL.D.  [Presbyterian],  New 

York  City. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  : 

THE  phrase  "Christian  Reunion"  is,  in  one  point  of  view, 
vague.  Is  a  union  like  that  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance 
contemplated?  In  what  sense  is  the  proposed  result  a  "re- 
union"?    Is  organic  union  contemplated? 


Christian  Reunion.  i  35 

To  Article  i  of  course  there  can  be  no  objection.  As  to  Arti- 
cle 2,  explanation  is  needed  as  to  the  meaning  of  "  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  as  the  Baptismal  Symbol."  The  Nicene  Creed  I  do  not 
tlijnk  a  *^  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith"  in  our 
time.  We  are  bound,  I  think,  to  have  a  creed  that  discrimi- 
nates between  great  truths  and  current  errors.  We  are  bound, 
I  think,  to  embody  in  our  creeds  a  protest  against  mediaeval  sub- 
stitutes for  the  truth,  still  urged  over  a  part  of  Christendom. 

So,  as  to  Article  3,  the  question  comes  up:  Can  some  admin- 
ister the  sacraments,  teaching  that  their  efficacy  is  dependent  on 
the  minister,  while  others  in  the  same  **  Christian  Reunion  " 
teach  that  their  efficacy  does  not  depend  on  anything  in  them 
nor  in  him  that  doth  administer  them?  This  is,  it  seems  to  me, 
a  vital  matter,  as  is  recognized  within  the  Anglican  Church  at 
this  day. 

With  regard  to  Article  4,  the  words  **  Historic  Episcopate  " 
do  not  define  enough.  One  large  denomination  claims  that  the 
*'  bishops  and  deacons  "  of  Philippi,  the  former  being  elders  or 
presbyters  without  any  superior,  constitute  the  "  Historic  Epis- 
copate." Is  this  claim  admitted  by  the  Lambeth  Conference? 
Our  Methodist  brethren,  in  America,  elect  bishops.  Does  the 
Conference  propose  to  regard  them  on  the  same  foundation  as 
the  Anglican  bishops?  Are  archbishops  included  in  the  "  His- 
toric Episcopate"?  Again,  the  word  "historic"  is  too  vague 
for  a  definition  so  vital  as  is  here  involved.  How  much  of  time 
does  "historic"  include?  There  are  many  things  for  which 
"  historic "  claims  could  be  set  up,  which  as  Protestant  New 
Testament  Churches  we  could  not  accept.  There  is  need  of 
greater  definiteness  of  statement. 

Once  more:  One  cannot,  however  anxious  for  a  fitting  dis- 
play of  the  relations  of  all  believers  to  GOD  in  CHRIST,  and  to 
one  another  in  Him,  ignore  the  antagonizing  views  regarding 
the  "Catholic  ChurchV^  which  must  be  settled.  Does  the 
"  Catholic  Church  "  consist  of  "  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Greek 
Church,  and  the  Anglican  Church"?  Are  the  outside  "  Protes- 
tant religious  bodies  sects,  so  called  from  a  Latin  word  *  to 
cut  off/  "  and  is  it  to  be  held  that  "  they  have  cut  themselves 
off  from  the  full  fellowship  of  the  Catholic  Church  "?  Does  the 
Lambeth  Conference  deny  all  this,  and  favor  the  receiving  of 
their  ministers,  for  example,  as  ministerial  brethren?  Or  must 
they  be    somehow  taken    back    into    the    "  Catholic    Church," 


136  The  Church  Review, 

land  if  so,  in  what  way?  Are  their  orders  to  be  recognized,  or 
is  there  to  be  devised  some  way  of  giving  orders,  say  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  bishops?  If  they  have  *'  abandoned  the 
Catholic  ministry,  sacraments,  and  Liturgy,"  how  are  they  to 
be  restored? 

These  are  only  specimens  of  many  questions  that  must  arise, 
requiring  more  explicitness  than  Article  4  involves.  Are 
"  bishops  "  of  the  ''  Catholic  Church,"  as  defined  above,  the 
only  officers  having  the  right  to  ordain?  Do  such  bishops 
"  keep  up  the  Church  "  by  consecrating  their  successors  to  the 
**  Episcopate,"  etc.?  In  other  words,  is  the  tenet  of  "  Apostolic 
Succession "  involved  in,  or  excluded  from,  the  basis  of  the 
Lambeth  Conference? 

But  I  fear  my  questions  and  difficulties  will  take  too  much  of 
your  space.  The  statement  of  these  gives  me  pain ;  but  Chris- 
tians are  bound  to  be  true  to  the  truth  of  things,  and  any  show 
of  union  not  based  on  actual  harmony  of  beliefs  is,  for  all  the 
purposes  of  a  spiritual  Church,  of  little  value. 

I  am  always  glad  to  co-operate  with  my  brethren  of  the  vari- 
ous Protestant  Churches,  and  I  would  rejoice  in  the  removal  of 
obstacles  to  closer  fellowship.  To  exchange  pulpits  with  the 
Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Methodists,  and  others,  has  been  a 
pleasure,  and  has  also  been  a  manifestation  of  oneness  in  great 
common  aims.  All  action  consistent  with  fidelity  to  vital  truth, 
and  with  frank  openness  in  the  profession  of  unity,  I  would  wel- 
come thankfully. 

Yours  most  truly, 

J.  Hall. 


The  Rev.  Lyman  Abbott,  D.D.,  LL.D.  [Congregational- 
ist],  Editor  of  the  Christian  Union,  New  York. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  : 

IT  can  hardly  be  necessary  for  me  to  say  that  T  am  very 
earnestly  in  favor  of  all  practicable  measures  for  Christian 
union  in  Christian  work,  since  I  have  been  for  over  ten  years 
the  Editor  of  a  paper  whose  title  thoroughly  indicates  this  to 
be  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  which  it  has  endeavored 
to  inculcate.  I  welcomed,  therefore,  most  cordially  the  basis 
for  Christian  Reunion  proposed  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  in 


Christian  Reunion.  137 

1S08,  not  because  that  basis  seemed  to  me  a  finality,  but  because 
in  its  (lefmiteness  and  in  its  practicability  it  seemed  a  ^reat 
advance  on  anything  which  had  been  before  proposed  by  any 
Church. 

While  I  have  no  objection  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  I  should  be 
quite  satisfied  with,  and  on  the  whole  should  prefer,  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed  as  not  only  the  Baptismal  Symbol,  but  also  as  a  suffi- 
cient statement  of  the  Christian  Faith. 

If^by  the  Historic  Episcopate  is  meant,  as  I  suppose,  what 
is  known  as  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession,  I  do  not 
believe  that  a  Christian  reunion  can  be  secured  on  that  basis. 
Tfiiere  are  "many  of  us  who  have  no  desire  to  antagonize  that 
doctrine,  and  yet  who  could  not  accept  it  and  make  it  our  own; 
for  however  much  we  may  desire  Christian  reunion,  we  desire 
yet  more  to  maintain  absolute  candor  in  the  statement  of  our 
own  convictions,  and  it  is  our  conviction  that  the  doctrine  of 
Apostolic  Succession  finds  no  warrant  in  Scripture,  as  it  is 
also  the  conviction  of  some  men  who  are  eminent  in  the  Epis- 
copal Communion. 

May  I  be  allowed  to  add  one  other  suggestion?  At  present 
pulpit  exchanges  between  Episcopalians  and  non-Episcopalians 
are  unknown,  and  I  suppose  are  not  in  accordance  with  your 
canons.  Why  should  not  such  exchanges  be  allowed?  I  can 
understand  why  those  who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
Succession  must  refuse  to  allow  those  whom  they  regard  as  un- 
ordained  to  pronounce  absolution  or  to  administer  the  Sacra- 
ment; but  preaching  is  a  prophetical,  not  a  priestly  office.  If 
the  Episcopal  Church  would  recognize  this  fact  and  would 
admit  to  its  pulpits  men  not  Episcopally  ordained ;  if,  for 
example,  Dr.  Morgan  Dix  would  invite  Dr.  John  Hall  to  con- 
tinue in  Trinity  Church  the  Lenten  sermons  so  admirably 
initiated  this  year  by  Dr.  Phillips  Brooks,  and  Dr.  John  Hall 
would  invite  Dr.  Morgan  Dix  to  preach  in  the  Fifth  Avenue 
Presbyterian  Church,  —  a  sign  of  inter-denominational  comity 
would  be  furnished,  and  a  step  toward  the  reunion  of  the  dis- 
severed Church  would  be  taken,  full  of  hope  for  those  of  us 
who  recognize  the  fact  that  such  a  reunion  must  be  a  growth 
and  the  result  of  gradual  and  successive  processes.  For  my- 
self it  was  a  great  delight  to  me  to  have  present  at  my  recent 
installation  in  Plymouth  Church  two  clergymen  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  to  be  permitted  this  Lenten  season  to  giv^e  a 


138  The  Church  Review. 

Lenten  address  in  S.  George's  Church  of  this  city,  as  it  has 
been  a  pleasure  and  a  profit  to  us  in  Plymouth  Church  to  take 
some  initiatory  steps  toward  the  recognition  of  Lent  and  Passion 
Week  in  special  Church  services. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Lyman  Abbott. 


V 


The  Rev.  J.  M.  Buckley,  D.D.  [Methodist],  New  York 
City,  Editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir: 

IN  response  to  }'our  courteous  communication  of  March  lO, 
I  am  willing  to  make  a  statement  of  my  convictions  upon 
the  profoundly  interesting  topic  of  your  communication.  There 
are  four  points  in  the  basis  of  the  Christian  Reunion  proposed 
by  the  Lambeth  Conference  in  1888.  The  first,  second,  and 
third  would  be  entirely  satisfactory  to  Methodists.  Upon  the 
fo~urth  I  can  with  propriety  give  nothing  more  than  my  own 
views,  adding,  nevertheless,  the  statement  of  my  belief  that  they 
are  in  accord  with  those  of  most  ministers  and  laymen  of  the 
branch  of  Methodism  with  which  I  am  connected. 

I  do  not  believe  that  what  is  known  as  the  Historic^Episco- 
pate  is  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  or  that  it  is  necessary  to 
constitute  a  true  branch  of  the  visible  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Yet  I  highly  approve  the  principle  of  Episcopal  supervision,  as 
contributing  to  unity,  general  uniformity,  and  efficiency  in  ad- 
ministration. It  is  not  my  belief  that  a  Historic  Episcopate,  in 
the  sense  involving  a  separate  Order  in  the  ministry,  can  be 
demonstrated  to  be  a  continuous  and  unbroken  chain  from  the 
Apostolic  age  to  our  own. 

Therefore  I  could  not  unite  in  an  ecclesiastical  organization 
requiring  as  a  matter  of  Faith,  either  expressly  or  by  implication, 
a  Scriptural  or  a  historic  basis  for  such  an  institution.  It  would, 
however,  be  possible  to  adopt  it  as  expedient,  to  give  it  all  the 
functions  predicated  of  an  Order,  to  conform  to  it  and  to  require 
conformity  to  it  by  all  the  members  of  the  said  organization, 
provided  it  did  not  require  a  refusal  to  recognize  the  claims  of 
ecclesiastical  Communions  orthodox  in  doctrine,  which  do  not 
accept  such  an  Episcopate  and  sacraments,  to  the  possession  of 
a  valid  ministry. 


Christia7i  Reunion.  139 

Methodists  have  no  doubt  as  to  their  possession  of  both  these, 
nor  have  they  any  doubt  that  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian, 
Baptist,  Congrej^ational,  and  Lutheran  bodies  are  true  ministers, 
not  only  of  CHRIST,  but  of  His  visible  Church.  Entertaining  no 
doubt  of  their  own  authority  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  and  of 
the  visible  Church,  they  do  not  feel  the  need  of  what  is  called 
the  Historic  I'^piscopate,  nor  would  they  under  any  circum- 
stances or  for  any  result  place  themselves  in  a  position  where 
an  exchange  with  the  ministers  of  other  denominations  would 
be  a  breach  of  propriety  or  of  Church  order;  or  where  an  in- 
vitation to  the  ministers  of  such  Churches  to  administer  the 
Holy  Communion,  or  to  perform  any  function,  or  exercise  any 
prerogative,  of  the  Christian  ministry,  would  be  a  violation  of  the 
letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  laws  of  such  an  organization. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  all  the  difficulties  centre.  If  the  "  large 
freedom  and  variety  on  secondary  points  of  doctrine,  worship, 
and  discipline,  without  interference  with  existing  conditions  of 
property  and  endowment,"  could  be  allowed,  and  the  Historic 
Episcopate  could  be  so  held  as  not  to  put  the  intolerable  burden 
of  unchurching  (a  "vile  word,"  but  expressive  of  the  thought) 
other  Christian  bodies,  upon  some  such  basis,  '*  under  GOD'S 
gracious  providence,  a  reunited  Church  might  rest." 
Yours  sincerely, 

J.  M.  Buckley. 


The  Rev.  Howard  Crosby,  D.D.,  LL.D.  [Presbyterian], 
New  York  City. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  : 

WILL  you  excuse  me  from  preparing  an  elaborate  opinion 
on  the  Basis  of  Christian  Union  proposed  by  the  Lam- 
beth Conference?  I  can  put  my  views  in  a  few  words ;  they 
are  these :  — 

1.  The  Lambeth  propositions  I  believe  to  have  sprung  from 
the  best  of  motives. 

2.  The  external  union  of  the  whole  Church  of  CHRIST  under 
one  government  is  not  desirable.  The  endeavor  to  accom- 
plish this  end  led  to  the  frightful  and  bloody  scenes  of  the 
fourth  century;  and  when  the  end  was  gained,  the  Church 
became  a  political  power  of  worldliness  and  tyranny. 


i^o  The  Church  Review. 

3.  The  true  union  of  the  Church  of  CHRIST  Is  spiritual,  to 
be  marked  by  brotherly  love. 

4.  Bible  doctrine  and  local  government  are  the  soul  and 
body  of  the  Church. 

5.  Externals  should  give  way  before  spiritual  life.  Where 
the  spirit  of  the   LORD  is,  there  is  liberty. 

6.  The  Apostles'  (?)  Creed  and  the  Nicene  Creed  are  man's 
creation  long  after  the  Apostles'  day,  and  are  imperfect  state- 
ments. I  deem  the  Apostles'  Creed  wrong  in  saying  that  our 
Lord  descended  into  hell  or  hades.  He  went  to  Paradise,  and 
when  Paul  went  to  Paradise,  he  was  caught  ?//.  I  believe  that 
article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  derived  from  a  false  inter- 
pretation of  I  Peter  iil.  19,  in  the  third  century.  I  object  to  the 
Nicene  Creed  as  entering  into  philosophical  speculation,  when 
it~should  have  been  content  with  the  Scripture  statement  that 
"  the  Word  is  GOD."  The  Council  of  Nice  was  a  disgraceful 
meeting  in  a  corrupt  age. 

7.  *'  The  Historic  Episcopate  "  is  an  ambiguous  phrase.  The 
Historic  EpTscopate  of  the  first  century  was  a  parochial  Epis- 
copate. The  Historic  Episcopate  afterward  was  Diocesan, 
Metropolitan,  and  Provincial,  and  finally  Papal.  Hence  the 
ambiguity  of  the   phrase. 

8.  All  the  Churches  of  Christ  should  recognize  one  another 
in  all  things  and  not  allow  mere  external  peculiarities  to  keep 
them,   in  apparent  hostility. 

9.  The  blame  for  Christian  schisms  is  with  those  who  magnify 
externals  and  so  bar  off  spiritual  union. 

10.  There  is  no  schism  where  there  is  mutual  love  and  respect. 
These  ten  propositions  present  my  views  of  the  subject  better 

than  I  could  give  them  in  an  essay. 

Very  truly  yours,  HOWARD  CROSBY. 


The  Rev.  Talbot  W.  Chambers,  D.D.  [Dutch  Reformed], 
New  York  City. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir: 

THE  mutual  recognition  and  fraternal  co-operation  of  the 
existing  Evangelical  Communions  would  be  a  far  better 
evidence  of  the  oneness  of  the  Church  than  any  external  bond 
of  union  such  as  is  proposed. 


Christian  Reunion.  141 

2.  The  statement  in  rcj^ard  to  the  Scriptures  mi^dit  be  im- 
proved,   but   still   may   be   accepted   as   it   is. 

3.  The  Nicene  Creed  is  wholly  inadequate  as  a  statement  of 
doctrin"e,  because  it  makes  no  mention  of  the  extent  and 
nature  of  sin,  or  of  the  character  of  the  atonement,  or  of  the 
need  of  regeneration,  or  of  the  means  of  justification,  or  of  the 
extent  of  future  retribution.  The  varying  views  of  Christians 
on  these  points  would  be  a  bar  to  any  real  or  efficient  union. 
"Can  two  walk  together  except  they  be  agreed?" 

4.  Since  the  Nicene  age  GOD  has  led  His  Church  to  the 
development  of  a  number  of  important  truths  contained  in 
the  Bible;  to  give  up  these  truths  formulated  at  such  great 
cost,  and  confine  one's  self  to  the  one  formula  of  an  infant 
period,  would  be  simply  folly. 

5.  The  article  respecting  the  Sacraments  is  unexceptionable. 

6.  The  fourth  point,  the  **  Historic  Episcopate,"  is  too  vague 
to  serve  its  purpose.  It  might  be  interpreted  to  mean  the 
Episcopate  of  the  New  Testament,  or  that  of  the  age  of 
Cyprian,  or  that  of  full-blown  Romanism ;  or  subsequent  to 
the  Reformation,  it  might  mean  that  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
or  that  of  the  Scandinavian,  or  that  of  the  Moravian  Brethren. 

7.  The  Roman  Church  has  unity  in  the  sense  w^hich  the 
present  effort  seeks  to  secure ;  but  the  results  which  have  fol- 
lowed and  are  now  following  from  the  rigid  outward  clamp  by 
which  this  unity  is  secured,  do  not  commend  it  to  favor,  but 
rather  the  contrary. 

Talbot  W.  Chambers. 


The  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  L.L.D.  [Presby- 
terian], President  of  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, New  York. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir: 

THE  action  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1888  I  regard 
as  an  honest  effort  in  the  interest  of  higher  Christian 
unity.  As  such  it  has  a  claim  to  general  and  earnest  consid- 
eration. I  do  not  understand  that  this  action  aims  to  absorb, 
but  only  to  unify  the  different  denominations,  bringing  them 
on  common  ground  into  closer  Christian  fellowship.  With 
this  aim  I  heartily  sympathize. 


1^2  The  Church  Review, 

The  several  branches  of  the  Church  should  'recognize  their 
vital  relations  to  one  another  as  one  in  CHRIST  jESUS,  who 
alone  gives  life  to  all.  To  this  end  they  should  emphasize  only 
what   is    essential  and  what  is  common  to  all  who  "  hold  the 

Head." 

As  to  the  four  points  in  the  proposed  "  basis  for  Christian 
Reunion,"  I  would  prefer  that  the  first  should  state  more 
strongly  the  fact  of  the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  I  would  leave  room 
fo7  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  theory  of  inspiration ;  but  I 
would  assert  the  fact  more  distinctly. 

The  fourth  point  is  not  as  clear  as  I  could  wish.  It  will  bear 
an  interpretation  to  which  I  would  not  object.  ''  The  Historic 
Episcopate,"  taking  the  words  in  their  strict  meaning,  has 
possibilities  of  which  we  of  our  Church  might  avail  ourselves 
to  advantage,  if  thereby  we  could  bring  our  own  Churches 
closer  together  and  at  the  same  time  come  nearer  to  our 
brethren  of  the  other  branches  of  the  one  Church.  But  with  the 
possibilities  there  are  perils  which  cause  us  to  hesitate  to 
approve  this  fourth  point,  and  to  ask.  Exactly  what  do  you 
mean  by  ''the   Historic  Episcopate"? 

Thomas  S.  Hastings. 


The  Rev.  William  M.  Taylor,  D.D.  [Congregational- 
ist],  New  York  City. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir: 

^pHE  question  of  Christian  Reunion  has  not  a  very  great  in- 
1  terest  for  me  at  this  time.  I  do  not  regard  it  as,  in  the 
present  state  of  things,  a  practical  one ;  and  I  am  not  sure  that 
I  should  regard  a  great  aggregation  of  the  different  branches  of 
the  visible  Church,  on  any  basis,  as  very  desirable. 

So  far  as  the  first  three  articles  of  the  basis  proposed  by  the 
Lambeth  Conference  in  1888  are  concerned,  I  can  heartily  ac- 
cept them  ;  but  in  the  fourth  the  ''  Historic  Episcopate  "  needs 
to  be  defined.  I  do  not  know  what  it  <iTieans.  If  it  denotes  the 
Episcopate  as  at  present  existing  in  Episcopal  Churches,  I  do 
not  see  any  warrant  for  that  in  the  New  Testament  Scriptures; 
while,  if  it  signifies  what  I  should  call  the  Primitive  Episcopate, 


Christian  Reunion.  143 

—  that  is,  the  <^ovcrnmcnt  of  each  Churcli  by  a  Board,  the  mem- 
bers of  which  are  designated  indifferently  as  Ii^piscopoi  or 
Presbiiteroi,  —  that  is  Congre^^ationahsm,  or  in  a  sense,  Presby- 
tcrianism;  and  the  putting  of  it  into  the  basis  of  reunion  would 
imply  either  that  we  must  all  become  ICpiscopalians  ov  all  Con- 
f^re'i^ationalists,    in  order  to    be   reunited.     As   a   minister   of  a 

fc>         o  ' 

Congregational  Church,  I  could  not  insist  on  other  people  be- 
coming Congregationalists  as  an  essential  to  reunion;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  I  could  not  think  of  becoming  an  Episcopalian 
for  the  purpose  of  helping  on  reunion. 

Excuse  me  for  my  frankness  in  so  stating  my  views,  Ijut  in  a 
matter  of  this  kind,  the  truest  brotherhood  is  manifested  by  the 
utmost  frankness.     Believe  me, 

Yours  faithfully, 

William  M.  Taylor. 


The  Rev.  Edward  B.  Coe,  D.D.  [Dutch  Reformed], 
New  York  City. 

Editor  of  the  Church  Review,  Sir  : 

I  BEG  you  to  accept  my  thanks  for  the  invitation  to  contribute 
one  of  the  articles  on  Christian  Reunion.  If  it  were  possible 
for  me  to  do  this,  it  would  give  me  great  pleasure.  The  sub- 
ject is  one  in  which  I  take  a  very  deep  interest;  and  if  I  could 
do  anything  toward  advancing  the  movement  w^hich  now  occu- 
pies so  many  earnest  minds,  I  should  esteem  it  a  privilege.  My 
own  opinion  is  that  the  House  of  Bishops  has  laid  an  admirable 
basis  for  discussion,  if  not  for  ultimate  reunion ;  and  I  greatly 
honor  them  for  the  catholic  spirit  in  which  their  action  was 
taken,  and  for  the  broad  lines  which  they  have  drawn.  It  re- 
mains, however,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  these  propositions  (and 
particularly  No.  4)  should  be  interpreted  as  to  their  exact  mean- 
ing. All  that  other  bodies  of  Christians  may  rightfully  claim 
seems  at  first  sight  to  be  conceded.  But  is  this  really  so?  I 
confess  that  I  am  in  doubt;  and  I  trust  that  the  discussion  in 
your  Review  will  lead  to  a  more  exact  definition  of  that  which 
is  intended  in  these  articles  and  would  be  acceptable  to  the 
Episcopal  Church. 


144  The  Church  Review. 

I  regret  that  the  state  of  my  health,  which  has  obHged  me  to 
suspeira  for  a  short  time  even  my  accustomed  work,  makes  it 
quite  impossible  for  me  to  prepare  such  a  paper  as  you  request; 
but  I  shall  look  with  much  interest  for  the  series  of  articles 
when  the  next  number  of  the  Review  appears.  I  am 
Very  truly  yours, 

Edward  B.  Coe. 


THE 


Cburcb  IReview 


VOLUME    LIX.        *         OCTOBER,    1890 


Cljurci)  B^cunion. 

Conference  of  Bishops  of  the  Afiglican  Communion,  holden  at  Latnbeth 
Palace  in  July,  1888.  Encyclical  Letter  from  the  Bishops,  with 
Resolutions  and  Reports.  London  :  Society  for  Promoting  Chris- 
tian Knowledge.     New  York  :   E.  and  J.  B.  Young  and  Company. 

The  Church  Review,  vol.  Ivii.,  April,  1890.  New  York:  The  Church 
Review  Company. 

Right  Rev.  Arthur   Cleveland   Coxe,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Bishop  of  Western  New  York. 

RELIGION  in  America  has  reached  an  alarming  crisis,  which 
cannot  be  neglected  much  longer  by  the  patriot  or  the 
Christian.  Disguise  it  as  we  may,  American  institutions  are 
suffering  a  revolutionary  change,  if  not  a  fatal  subversion. 
Fatal  it  must  be  unless  the  American  spirit  can  be  roused  to 
self-preservation ;  unless  the  salt  of  the  earth  can  be  rescued 
from  losing  its  savor;  unless  the  "  ten  righteous  "  in  Sodom  can 
be  persuaded  to  join  hands  and  hearts  in  common  labors  and 
intercessions  for  the  thousands  who  desire  not  the  knowledge  of 
God,  and  choose  none  of  His  ways.  A  social  revolution  is 
needed  to  band  together  all  the  elements  which  are  not  solvent ; 
and  the  only  force  which  can  organize  the  lovers  of  Christ  and 
His  Gospel  for  efficient  operations  must  be  a  religious  one.  It 
was  not  a  sentimental  yearning  for  unity,  therefore,  which 
prompted  the  House  of  Bishops  to  present  to  their  fellow- 
Christians  a  simple  statement  of  first  principles  of  elementary 
truths,  essential  to  Church  restoration.  It  was  a  practical  move- 
ment, inspired  by  a  sense  of  duty.     Both  friends  and  enemies 

10 


14^  The  CImrch  Review. 

have  recognized  the  AngHcan  position  as  one  of  vantage  for  just 
such  overtures  as  have  been  made ;  and  at  all  events,  the  Bish- 
ops themselves  understood  their  obligations  and  their  oppor- 
tunity at  such  a  time  as  this.  In  humble  trust,  and  in  a  hopeful 
spirit,  they  resolved  to  cast  their  bread  upon  the  waters,  with  a 
holy  confidence  that  it  must  be  found  productive  "  after  many 
days."  God  has  made  their  "word  in  season"  apparently 
fruitful  already,  —  fruitful,  that  is,  in  giving  to  discussion  and 
inquiry  a  new  direction,  awakening  a  fraternal  sympathy  among 
Christians  widely  separated  heretofore,  and  plucking  the  **  root 
of  bitterness  "  out  of  differences  which  have  long  been  supposed 
incapable  of  any  other  treatment  than  such  as  perpetuates 
implacable  hostilities,  immedicable  wounds,  and  putrefying 
sores.  Even  these  have  already  been  mollified  as  with  oint- 
ment; and  hopes  are  freely  expressed  that,  after  all, 'our  worst 
evils  are  not  beyond  correction  by  the  grace  of  GOD.  He 
would  be  a  bold  man  indeed  who  should  say  more  of  the 
actual  situation  than  that  it  is  not  so  desperate  as  has  been 
supposed.  The  antagonisms  and  alienations  of  ages  are  not  to 
be  reconciled  in  a  moment.  The  wide  divergencies  which 
exist  among  good  men  are  fortified  by  habit,  even  where  they 
are  quite  free  from  the  venom  of  prejudice  and  the  vanity  of 
Pharisaic  self-applause.  Many  who  wish  to  meet  their  brethren 
halfway,  or  even  more  than  halfway,  are  yet  hindered  by 
their  inability  to  see  any  way  whatever  for  making  a  start. 
Above  all,  there  is  the  sturdy  vis  iiiertice  of  popular  ignorance. 
Many  things  in  which  educated  Christians  are  already  agreed 
are  scandals  to  the  masses,  whose  dulness  and  misapprehen- 
sions we  must  take  into  account.  Obviously  a /;'<?^^i"i'  of  assimi- 
lation is  the  condition  precedent  to  any  practical  solution  of 
the  great  problem;  and  that  this  process  is  already  begun  is  so 
evident  that  I  find  it  a  great  encouragement  to  my  honest  belief 
that  the  HOLY  Spirit  is  moving  over  our  American  chaos  of 
strifes,  heresies,  and  delusions,  and  that  the  dry  land  will  cer- 
tainly appear  ;  nay,  not  merely  dry  land,  but  hills  "  with  verdure 
clad,"  where  the  Good  Shepherd  may  yet  feed  a  united  flock, 
and  refresh  them  with  living  fountains  of  water. 

To  my  own  mind  nothing  in  the  spirit  of  recent  discussions 
has  presented  features  so  promising  as  that  which  has  been 
elicited  from  our  Presbyterian  brethren.  This,  indeed,  is  just 
what  no  superficial  thinker  could  have  anticipated.     It  reminds 


Historic  Presbyterians.  117 

one  of  the  quod  uiininic  reris  of  Viryil,  of  the  prospect  opened 
to  pious  /li^neas  from  a  quarter  whence  he  had  least  right  to 
look  for  it.  ]5et\veen  Geneva  and  Canterl)ury  how  can  any 
common  foothold  be  established?  Who  c.ui  reconcile  parity 
with  prelacy?  But  he  who  has  studied  the  origin  of  discord  in 
this  matter,  and  who  is  versed  in  scholastic  efforts  to  prop  the 
Papacy,  by  which  the  whole  subject  was  artificially  confused, 
knows  very  well  that  all  the  nobler  spirits  who  found  them- 
selves originally  arranged  on  opposite  sides  of  the  question 
were  by  no  means  implacable  in  their  conflicts  of  opinion.  In 
point  of  fact,  the  great  expounder  of  Primitive  Iipiscopacy,  S. 
Cyprian,  outlined  a  system  which  effectually  meets  the  views  of 
both  parties,  and  frees  the  subject  of  all  the  subtleties  by  which 
it  was  found  clogged  at  the  epoch  of  the  Reformation.  As 
stated  by  the  great  Bishop  of  Carthage,  the  parity  of  all  the 
chief  pastors  of  Christendom  is  not  so  much  asserted  as 
assumed.  It  was  the  principle  universally  understood  in 
Church  legislation  from  the  beginning.  After  this  the  position 
of  presbyters  (pastors,  or  "  Bishops  "  of  limited  jurisdiction), 
and  of  the  faithful  laity  as  sharing  in  Church  councils,  is  vin- 
dicated and  insisted  upon ;  so  that,  as  will  soon  be  seen,  the 
Cyprianic  system  meets  w^hat  Calvin  himself  considered  Scrip- 
tural, and  what  Baxter  and  his  contemporaries  actually  pro- 
posed as  a  formula  of  renewed  conformity  with  the  Church  of 
England.  Just  here,  then,  let  me  linger  for  a  moment,  to  note 
the  historical  base  established  by  their  co-religionists,  which 
Presbyterians  have  a  right  to  consider  the  only  Presbyterianism 
to  which  they  are  actually  committed,  and  that  to  which  they 
may  logically  recur,  in  responding  to  the  appeal  of  our  Bishops, 
should  they  be  so  inclined. 

It  is  surprising  how  generally  Presbyterians  have  forgotten 
the  fact  that  they  largely  co-operated  with  the  Anglican  Church 
in  the  restoration  of  the  English  constitutions,  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical, in  1660.  If  their  eminent  spokesman  and  leader,  Rich- 
ard Baxter,  could  have  persuaded  the  Anglicans  to  modify  what 
was  conceded  to  be  of  civil  rather  than  of  ecclesiastical  import, 
a  reunion  might  have  been  effected  at  that  time.  The  Church 
of  England,  at  this  moment,  concedes  as  much,  when  she  rec- 
ognizes our  American  Church  Constitution  as  differing  from  her 
own  in  nothing  of  ecclesiastical  importance.  Her  own  polity 
is  the  product,  in  many  respects,  of  her  time-honored  relations 


148  The  Church  Review. 

with  the  State,  —  relations  which  involve  much  to  be  deplored, 
but  which  few  of  her  children  are  willing  to  see  suddenly  and 
rudely  destroyed.  VVe  need  not  wonder,  then,  that  after  the 
civil  strifes  and  the  general  overthrow  of  law  and  order  under 
Cromwell,  the  restoration  of  the  ajite-bellum  conditions  appeared 
to  be  the  only  practical  resolution  of  problems  the  most  intri- 
cate, the  only  remedy  for  difficulties  the  most  gigantic,  and  the 
mildest  prescription  for  allaying  the  fierce  resentments  of  the 
moment.  It  is  very  honorable  to  the  Presbyterians,  however, 
that  they  were  able  to  unite  upon  proposals  to  the  government, 
of  which  the  substance  is  as  follows :  — 

We  are  induced  [they  say]  to  insist  upon  the  form  of  a  synodical 
government  conjunct  with  a  fixt  presidency  or  Episcopacy^  for  these 
reasons:  (i)  We  have  reason  to  believe  that  no  other  terms  will  be 
so  generally  agreed  on;  (2)  It,  being  agreeable  to  Scripture  and  the 
primitive  government,  is  likeliest  to  be  the  way  of  a  more  general  con- 
cord, if  ever  the  Churches  on  earth  arrive  at  such  a  blessing ;  however, 
it  will  be  acceptable  to  God  and  well-informed  consciences;  (3)  It 
will  produce  the  practice  of  discipline  without  discord,  and  promote 
order  without  hindering  discipline  and  godliness  ;  (4)  And  it  is  not  to 
be  silenced  .  .  .  that  the  Prelacy  disclaimed  in  the  late  '  Covenant ' 
was  the  engrossing,  the  sole  power  of  ordination  and  jurisdiction,  and 
exercising  the  whole  discipline  by  Bishops  themselves  and  their  dele- 
gates, —  excluding  wholly  the  people  of  particular  Churches  from  all 
share  in   it.^ 

Upon  this  the  heavenly-minded  Leighton  cites  Baxter's  trea- 
tise of  Church  Government,  as  favoring  '*  an  Episcopacy  for  the 
reformation,  preservation,  and  peace  of  the  Churches."  And 
why  not?  It  was  nothing  new  in  Presbyterian  statements  of 
their  theoretical  position.  In  language  too  strong  to  be  re- 
peated, Calvin  himself  anathematized  those  who  could  refuse  an 
Episcopate  that  recognizes  Christ,  and  not  the  Papacy,  for  its 
Headship  and  its  Lawgiver.  **  In  my  writings  touching  Church 
Government,"  says  Beza,  *'  I  ever  imipugned  the  Romish  hie- 
rarchy, but  never  intended  to  touch  the  Church  of  England." 
And  Bucer,  writing  to  Saravia,  the  bosom  friend  of  Hooker,  ex- 
presses himself  thus  forcibly:  "  If  there  be  any,  as  you  will 
not  easily  persuade  me,  who  would  reject  the  whole  Order  of 

1  T7V0  Papers  of  Proposals,  hiinihly  prrscnted  to  his  Maj'esfy  hy  the  Rev.  MINISTERS 
OF  THE  Presbyterian  Persuasion.     London,  1661. 


Historic  Presbyterians,  149 

Bishops,  God  forbid  that  any  man  in  his  senses  should  assent  to 
their  madness."  It  would  be  cjuite  easy  to  multiply  similar  tes- 
timonies. At  the  Synod  of  Dort,  its  president  welcomed  the 
English  Bishops  in  language  that  conceded  the  less  fortunate 
condition  of  the  Reformed  in  Holland,  deprived  as  they  were  of 
the  Episcopate.  And  later  on,  Diodati  bewailed  the  same  lack 
in  the  constitution  of  the  Swiss  Churches.  Even  then  the  most 
erudite  and  sagacious  of  the  Presbyterians  were  of  the  same 
mind  with  Baxter;  and  what  would  they  have  said,  had  they 
fully  foreseen  the  end  to  which  they  were  drifting?  A  century 
later,  Rousseau,  and  not  Calvin,  was  the  master  of  Geneva;  and 
the  Presbyterians  of  England  had  so  generally  lapsed  into  So- 
cinianism,  in  the  early  }-cars  of  this  century,  that  it  became 
necessary  to  enact  a  special  law  in  behalf  of  three  hundred  con- 
gregations which  had  rejected  the  Faith  of  ClIRlST.  They  were 
thus  relieved  from  lawsuits  which  assumed  that  they  had  for- 
feited all  right  to  their  property  by  their  acknowledged  revolt 
from  the  principles  of  their  original  foundation. 

But  a  rejection  of  Episcopacy  was  no  part  of  those  original 
principles,  if  we  accept  the  testimony  we  have  cited.  In  fact, 
the  Presbyterians  of  England  committed  themselves  to  the 
acceptance  of  a  primitive  Episcopate  almost  identical  with  that 
defined  by  Chillingworth.  He  says:  "If  we  abstract  from 
Episcopal  government  all  accidentals,  and  consider  only  what 
is  essential  and  necessary  to  it,  we  shall  find  it  no  more  but  this: 
an  appointment  of  one  man  of  eminent  sanctity  and  sufficiency 
to  have  the  care  of  all  the  Churches  within  a  certain  precinct  or 
Diocese,  and  furnishing  him  with  authority,  not  absolute  or 
arbitrary y  but  regulated  and  bounded  by  laws,  and  moderated  by 
joining  to  him  a  convenient  number  of  assistants,  to  the  intent 
that  all  the  Churches  under  him  may  be  provided  of  good  and 
able  pastors ;  so  that,  both  of  pastors  and  people,  conformity  to 
laws  and  performance  of  their  duties  may  be  required,  under 
penalties  not  left  to  discretion,  but  by  law  appointed." 

Nor  are  these  historic  principles  of  the  early  Presbyterians  a 
thing  of  the  past.  Again,  quod  minime  reris,  from  Scotland 
come  concessions  to  these  principles  far  more  emphatic  than  we 
have  yet  heard  in  America.  In  1862,  the  '*  Moderator"  of  the 
great  legislature  of  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  deplored  the  evils  of 
separation,  and  broke  out  with  this  impassioned  ejaculation : 
"  Oh,  that  some  great  patriot  of  heaven-born  thoughts,  full  of 


150  The  C /lurch  Review, 

the  wisdom  of  the  holy  Prophets,  might  arise  in  our  land  to 
show  how  this  conjunction  and  consummation  so  devoutly  to  be 
wished  for  might  be  accomplished  !  "  He  admitted  that  increas- 
ing numbers  in  the  Scottish  establishment  complained  of  the 
bald  and  cold  nature  of  their  worship,  and  he  eulogized  **  the 
beautiful  service"  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  1866,  Dr. 
Campbell,  Principal  of  the  University  of  Aberdeen,  thus  re- 
ferred to  our  own  American  Church:  "The  admirable  con- 
stitution of  which  combines  the  advantages  of  Presbytery  and 
Episcopacy,  the  lay  element  being  represented  and  employed 
in  a  most  wise  and  efficient  manner  in  the  councils  of  the 
Church."  This  spirit  has  grown  and  strengthened  vastly  in 
the  course  of  tw^enty  years.  PVom  many  examples  ^  of  the 
kind  take  these  words  of  the  eminent  Principal  TuUoch :  ''  Let 
the  dead  bury  their  dead;  it  is  time  to  forget  old' conflicts 
which  all  ivise  thinkers  have  abandoned.  Presbyterianism  does 
not  disown  Episcopacy,  and  certainly  does  not  denounce  it;  and 
there  are  few  wise  Presbyterians  who  do  not  see  weaknesses  in 
their  own  system  arising  from  the  disuse  of  it." 

f5sential  Presbyterianism,  then,  only  demands  that  "  elders 
brethren  "  shall  have  synodical  place  and  privileges,  conjoint 
with  the  superior  order  which  is  now  known  as  the  order  of 
"  Bishops,"  —  a  name  which  was  once  common  alike  to  chief 
pastors  and  presbyters,  just  as  in  an  army  certain  officers  are 
**  generals,"  though  some  generals  are  *'  brigadiers,"  and  others 
commanders  of  the  corps.  The  appeal  of  our  House  of  Bishops, 
therefore,  has  come  to  Presbyterians  from  just  such  a  Church  as 
they  are  historically  committed  to  acknowledge  as  Scriptural 
and  as  best  fitted  to  reunite  divided  households  in  the  family  of 
Christ.  In  1882,  *'the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly" 
(Dr.  Milligan)  used  this  language:  **  There  is  much  to  draw  us 
to  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland.  .  .  .  The  earliest  and  best 
of  our  reformers  had  no  objections  to  much  that  the  Episcopal' 
Church  retains  in  doctrine,  zvorship,  and  government.  If  in  later 
times  a  spirit  of  mutual  animosity  prevailed,  it  was  in  no  small 
degree  because  of  temporary  causes  which  have  in  great  meas- 
ure passed  away,  .  .  .  deepened  by  that  folly  and  sin,  on  both 
sides,  which  all  parties  now  equally  bewail." 

When  such  language  is  heard  and  applauded    in    the   great 

1  See  these  and  others  in  a  publication  of  Dr.  Wordsworth,  Bishop  of  S.  An- 
drew's. —  Ecclesiastical  Union  betzveen  England  and  Scotland.     Edinburgh,  1888. 


Historic   Presbyterians,  151 

council  of  the  Kirk,  not  once  or  twice,  but  a^ai:^  and  a^ain, 
year  after  year,  one  would  think  that  '*  both  parties  "  nii^ht  em- 
brace at  once,  and  by  uniting  establish  a  power  for  ^(jod  which 
the  world  itself  must  recognize  as  of  immense  import  to  man- 
kind. Think  of  what  it  would  mean  for  this  y\merican  Re[)ublic 
if  Presbyterians  might  unite  with  us  on  principles  which  their 
Scottish  brethren  have  thus  emphasized.  iUit  such  a  consum- 
mation is  still  a  great  way  off,  we  may  sadly  suppose.  The 
recent  comments  of  eminent  Presbyterians  upon  the  proposals 
of  our  l^ishops  betray  distrust.  With  suppressed  feeling,  and 
almost  unanimously,  they  intimate  a  fear  that  there  is  some- 
thing behind  our  theoretical  statements,  —  something  kept  out  of 
sight  for  the  present,  but  which  must  become  odious  and  irritat- 
ing as  soon  as  the  matter  is  made  practical.  1  think  we  ought 
not  to  give  any  ground  for  a  suspicion  that  we  are  disposed  to 
hide  from  our  brethren  what  they  are  entitled  to  know,  and 
hence  I  will  not  avoid  the  subject  which  with  great  delicacy 
they  have  approached  in  their  candid  and  fraternal  discussions. 
They  have  asked  us  to  be  precise  in  defining  the  *'  Historical 
Episcopate."  In  a  word,  they  wish  to  know  whether  this  means 
an  Episcopate  of  which  the  "  Apostolic  Succession  "  is  the  cri- 
terion. This  is  the  bugbear,  apparently;  but  perhaps  it  may 
seem  less  terrible  when  we  look  at  it  in  its  actual  bearings  and 
divested  of  any  desire  on  our  part  to  subject  learned  and  godly 
brethren  to  our  convictions.  The  existence  of  an  Episcopate 
which  is  historical  is  all  that  we  have  asserted.  We  present  a 
fact,  not  a  theory.  By  historical  is  meant  something  which  has 
been  recognized  in  the  Churches  of  CHRIST  from  the  beginning, 
—  ''  always,  everywhere,  and  by  all ;  "  something  that  has  con- 
tinuity of  transmission  under  the  original  canons  and  consti- 
tutions from  Apostolic  or  sub-Apostolic  times.  This  fact  and 
not  any  dogma  concerning  its  origin  is  what  we  have  defined. 
It  is  candid  to  remark  that  not  Presbyterians  only,  but  the 
Papists  as  well,  have  adopted  theories  touching  this  "  Historic 
Episcopate  "  which  w^e  cannot  accept.  Practically,  however,  the 
Latins  have  not  rejected  the  essentials  of  its  identity  and  con- 
tinuity, although  their  Papacy  abhors  the  Cyprianic  system 
in  order  to  establish  its  own  supremacy.  If,  then,  we  accept 
adhesion  to  \\\(t  fact  in  behalf  of  the  Latins,  by  the  same  law 
we  must  accept  it  elsewhere.  No  Roman  Bishop  is  Catholic 
in  his  position,  or  has  any  claim  to  the  Episcopal  character, 


152  The  Church  Review. 

under  the  theory  to  which  he  subscribes  as  the  condition  of 
obtaining  it. 

The  Moravian  Episcopate  is  subject  to  similar  objections; 
but  if  i7i  point  of  fact  the  Historic  Episcopate  exists  among 
these  interesting  Christians,  it  is  our  duty  and  privilege  to  recog- 
nize it  as  meeting  our  propositions  of  unity,  at  least  so  far  forth. 

What  Presbyterians  seem  to  scent  with  disrelish  is  a  subaudi- 
tion of  reordination.  None  of  them,  however,  is  greater  than 
Apollos,  —  that  eloquent  man  of  GOD,  "  mighty  in  the  Scrip- 
tures," and  pre-eminent  as  a  successful  preacher  of  Christ,  who 
was  yet  so  humble  that  he  consented  to  learn  "  the  way  of  GOD  " 
more  perfectly  from  a  layman  and  even  from  a  woman  !  He 
was  even  rebaptized  without  murmuring,  in  order  to  *'  fulfil  all 
righteousness,"*  as  did  Christ,  his  grand  exemplar,  who  under 
that  principle  demanded  a  baptism  of  which  He  had  no  need 
at  all.  Now,  whatever  our  learned  brethren  may  object  (and 
the  Bishop  of  S.  Andrew's  has  said  it  for  them),  I  yet  believe 
that,  considering  and  studying  this  subject  in  its  hierurgic  and 
liturgic  lights,  they  must  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  need 
to  learn  something  of  this  "  way  of  GoD  "  more  perfectly.^ 
The  utter  absence  of  any  recognition  of  functions  of  the  Chris- 
tian Priesthood  beyond  that  of  preaching,  in  most  of  their  ex- 
pressions upon  this  subject,  is  remarkable.  If  the  laity  are  also 
"  a  holy  Priesthood,"  how  must  we  account  for  this  abnegation 
of  2\\  priestly  functions  in  those  set  apart  to  be  the  special  agents 
of  the  One  Great  High-Priest,  in  all  things  which  He  has  com- 
manded? I  entreat  dear  brethren  who  have  too  little  thought 
of  this  to  examine  the  Greek  of  that  remarkable  text  (Rom.  xv. 
15,  16),  in  which  S.  Paul  asserts  his  hierurgic  ministration  of  the 
Gospel,  for  which  he  had  received  the  charisma  of  the  HOLY 
Spirit.  It  is  a  passage  which  illustrates  the  grand  hierurgy 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  connects  it  with  Christian 
counterparts  of  the  Levitical  types. 

I  believe,  then,  that  deep  thought  on  this  subject  would 
persuade  many  that  as  Apollos  did  no  dishonor  to  his  former 
ministry,  when  he  completed  it,  in  this  respect,  so  they  might 
in  like  manner,  demand  a  further  gift.  But  we  have  not  indis- 
creetly and  unlovingly  proposed  this  to  our  brethren.  Our 
proposals  are,  in  brief,  that  every  organization  of  Christians, 
throughout  the  world,  should   recur  to  the   requirements  of  the 

^  See  Apollos,  or,  The  Way  of  God.     By  Bishop  Coxe,  Lippincotts,  Publishers. 


Historic  Presbyterians.  i  c  •? 

Nicenc  Constitutions  as  to  a  common  centre,  and  complete 
their  organic  form,  by  "  setting  in  order  the  things  that  are 
wanting."  Tliis  insures  essential  conformity  with  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Historic  Church  before  the  Papacy  existed,  and 
so  long  as  it  was  visibly  *'  One,  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic." 
Such  is  what  we  require  of  ourselves  ;  and  wherever  we  our- 
selves can  be  proved  to  have  suffered  any  loss,  there  we  too 
are  bound  by  our  own  terms  to  conform  ourselves  to  the 
Nicene  standard.  We  demand  no  less  of  arrogant  and  schis- 
matical  Rome;  and  we  rejoice  to  see  "the  (Jld  Catholics" 
restoring  themselves  to  a  pure  Catholicity,  on  this  principle. 
The  "  Roman  Catholic  Church,"  so  called,  is  by  that  very  name 
defined  as  <:^;//r^-Nicene,  and  therefore  non-Catholic.  It  is,  in 
fact,  not  a  Church,  but  an  unlawful  confederation  of  Western 
Churches,  which  are  Catholic  only  in  their  individuality,  and 
not  in  their  confederacy.  By  this  analysis  only  can  we  recog- 
nize them;  even  as  CllRlST  recognized  severally  each  of  the 
seven  Churches  of  Asia,  —  types  as  they  were  of  degenerate 
Churches  of  our  own  age.  And  what  does  he  command  them 
to  do  for  their  purification?  In  every  instance,  to  "remember 
from  what  tney  have  fallen;  ...  to  repent  and  do  their  first 
works."  The  fallen  and  corrupt  Churches  of  antiquity,  there- 
fore, are  still  Apostolic  Churches,  —  one  a  "  Sardis,"  another  a 
"  Thyatira,"  perhaps,  but  still  recognized  by  their  only  Supreme 
Head  and  Great  High-Priest,  who  stands  amid  the  golden 
candlesticks  and  holds  their  stars  in  His  right  hand.  This  is 
"  the  Catholic  Church  "  even  in  its  debasement,  as  viewed  by 
its  long-suffering  LORD  and  MASTER.  We  may  not  be  a 
"Smyrna,"  nor  a  "Philadelphia;"  perhaps  our  Anglican 
Church  is  a  "  Laodicea."  But  our  safeguard  is  this:  we  do 
not  refuse  to  hear  "  what  the  Spirit  saith  to  the  Churches,"  and 
what  we  suppose  to  be  the  duty  of  others  we  prescribe  rigor- 
ously, and  first  of  all,  to  ourselves. 

One  difficulty  which  has  thus  far  confused  the  discussion  on 
the  part  of  our  Christian  brethren  generally  has  been  the 
natural  product  of  their  position,  or  standpoint.  Viewing  us 
as  they  do,  they  have  felt  it  somew^hat  presuming  for  us  to  state 
the  case  as  we  have  done,  because  it  seems  to  demand  conform- 
ity to  our  standards,  and  a  subjection  of  their  organizations 
to  ours.  We,  on  the  other  hand,  have  hardly  thought  of  our 
American  Church   at  all;    we  have    spoken /<?r  iJie    Universal 


154  The  Church  Review. 

Church  of  CHRIST,  asking  our  brethren  to  conform  themselves 
to  its  historic  laws,  and  professing  our  readiness  to  do  the  same, 
in  all  respects,  where  we  can  be  shown  to  have  erred  by  Holy 
Scripture,  interpreted  by  history  and  primitive  constitutions. 

They  have  therefore  viewed  our  proposals  as  a  local  or 
national  question,  respecting  chiefly  the  divided  state  of 
American  Christianity,  and  reducing  even  this  view  of  the  case 
to  divisions  among  those  popularly  known  as  "  Evangelical." 
We,  on  the  other  hand,  have  been  forced  by  our  position  to 
respect  the  entire  common  weal  of  Catholic  Christendom;  to 
enforce  its  organic  laws  as  the  common  concern  of  all  Chris- 
tians ;  and  to  abate  nothing  from  the  requirements  of  those  laws, 
whether  in  our  own  behalf  or  in  behalf  of  others.  We  long  to 
bear  our  part  in  healing  local  differences,  and  restoring  Ameri- 
cans to  Catholic,  that  is,  Scriptural  unity;  but  in  ofder  to  do 
this,  we  must  not  forfeit  anything  that  we  retain  in  common  with 
the  Oriental  Churches,  —  those  great  sources  of  liturgic  formula- 
ries, those  mother  Churches  of  all  Christendom.  Our  Anglican 
standpoint,  even  as  the  most  embittered  of  our  Roman  enemies 
have  been  forced  to  allow,  is  "  most  precious."  Yes,  indeed  ! 
So  says  even  that  friend  and  ally  of  the  Jesuits,  the  fanatical  De 
Maistre.  The  inward  convictions  of  the  Roman  Court  itself 
find  expression  in  what  he  has  reluctantly  admitted,  influenced 
by  a  momentary  hope  to  seduce  England  from  a  Catholic  foot- 
hold, —  down  from  the  Nicene  rock  into  the  quagmire  of  Trent. 
"  If  ever  Christians  reunite,"  he  says,  "  it  would  seem  that  the 
vciowtvc\Qni  in?tst  pj'oceed  from  the  Anglican  CJinrcJi,  which  touches 
us  on  the  one  side  and  the  Protestants  on  the  other.  ...  In 
this  aspect  she  is  most  precious,  and  seems  like  those  chemical 
intcrmcdes,  which  are  capable  of  bringing  together  and  combin- 
ing elements  in  themselves  the  most  dissocial."  Yes,  indeed  ! 
And  this  precious  position  we  shall  never  forfeit.  The  time 
must  come  when  the  Roman  immigration,  or  rather  invasion, 
may  produce  its  Dbllinger,  and  will  gladly  listen  to  owx precious 
testimony.  We  are  the  reserve  force  of  Catholicity,  and  we 
bide  our  time.  A  glorious  mission  is  ours,  and  we  feel  it.  A 
fierce  conflict  menaces  our  country,  between  the  aggressions 
of  Romanism  and  all  that  is  American.  Marshalled,  as  it  is, 
and  wholly  controlled,  by  the  Jesuits,  Ultramontane  Romanism 
cannot  maintain  itself  here.  What  all  the  Romanized  States  of 
Europe  have    expelled    from  their  body  politic,   what  even   a 


Historic  Prcsbyleria7is. 


1=; 


00 


Pope  abolished  as  intolerable  to  civilization,  must  sooner  or 
later  provoke  a  like  retribution  from  a  free  republic.  (Jur 
proposals  to  the  Protestants  of  America  were  made  in  full  view 
of  this  comini^  conflict.  We  urge  our  brethren  to  unity,  partly 
because  our  divisions  afford  encouragement  to  the  adversary, 
and  wholly  because  the  law  of  ClIRlST  ordains  such  unity. 
But,  come  what  nui)',  we  cannot  destroy  our  own  Catholicity  in 
behalf  of  a  fictitious  fusion,  or  rob  ourselves  of  the  high  mis- 
sion which  awaits  us  in  the  near  future,  —  our  mission,  that  is, 
to  co-operate  with  an  "  Old  Catholic  "  movement  that  cannot 
long  be  delayed  in  these  United  States.  Working  with  such 
allies,  we  arc  destined  to  save  the  nation  itself  from  an  alien 
hierarchy,  intent  u})on  making  us  what  it  has  made  of  Mexico 
and  Brazil.      In  this  view  our  Church  is  "  most  precious." 

Meantime,  my  own  ideas  of  duty  are  these:  To  keep  before 
our  "  Evangelical  "  brethren  the  common  law  of  Christendom, 
and  to  aid  them  in  conforming  themselves  thereto  in  their  own 
way  and  in  the  Lord's  good  time,  doing  this  in  the  fulness 
of  fraternal  love  and  social  good-will.  Responding  to  such 
overtures,  let  us  suppose  our  Moravian  brethren  to  awaken  to 
the  great  importance  of  their  relations  to  Presbyterians  and 
others,  assuming  (what  is  presumptively  the  fact)  that  they  pos- 
sess the  Historic  Episcopate  already.  K  formal  though  abnor- 
mal Episcopacy  is  maintained  by  our  Methodist  brethren ;  and 
we  should  rejoice  to  see  the  nobler  Moravian  character  conferred 
upon  Methodist  Bishops  by  a  movement  which  would  prove 
greatly  to  the  advantage  of  both.  The  maxims  of  John  Wesley 
must  sooner  or  later  begin  to  operate  upon  that  great  American 
organization  which  justly  glories  in  his  beloved  name ;  and  if 
ever  the  Presbyterians,  already  renouncing  Calvinism,  should 
promote  a  fusion  with  Methodists,  we  may  be  sure  that  their 
learning  and  keen  perceptions  of  truth  must  demand  nothing  less 
as  a  preliminary  than  a  legitimation  of  Methodist  Orders.  The 
fusion  that  might  thus  come  about  would  enable  them  to  turn 
upon  us  and  say,  "  See  how  great  and  strong  we  are,  and  how 
inconsiderable  are  you  ;  come  ye  to  us,  for  it  is  unreasonable 
on  your  part  to  expect  us  to  come  to  you."  And  what  must 
then  be  our  reply?  Brethren,  you  have  made  us  one  already; 
let  us  now  operate  together  with  "  the  Old  Catholics  "  for  the 
expulsion  of  Jesuitism  and  alienism  from  American  Christian- 
ity,—  for    the    restoration,    that    is    to    say,   of    Nicene    unity, 


ir6  The  Church  Review. 

Cyprianic  unity,  Ignatian  unity;  the  unity  ordained  of  CHRIST 
Himself;  "one  flock  under  one  shepherd;"  one  house  "  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  Apostles  and  Prophets,  jESUS  CHRIST 
Himself  being  the  chief  Corner-stone." 

Our  fellow-Christians  are  more  numerous  than  we  are;  we 
have  not  a  particle  of  objection  to  see  them  thus  organized  into 
a  majestic  American  Church,  greater,  richer,  more  Apostolic, 
and  more  loyal  to  CHRIST  than  we  are.  With  such  a  Church 
we  should  be  in  full  communion,  and  must  soon  coincide  in  a 
visible  unity.  The  process  thus  fancifully  outlined  would  in- 
volve temporary  anomalies;  but,  as  was  demonstrated  in  the 
Donatist  history,  anomalies  may  be  tolerated  in  the  process  of 
recojistriiction  which  would  be  subversive  of  Catholicity  if  gen- 
erated by  the  contrary  spirit  of  schism. 

To  sum  up  all  that  has  been  said,  and  to  clear  the  subject, 
let  us  note  that  what  originated  with  the  American  Bishops  was 
reaffirmed  by  the  hundred  and  fifty  Bishops  at  Lambeth,  and  is 
now  presented  to  the  Reformed,  both  in  America  and  in  Europe, 
in  substance  as  follows:  — 

The  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Creeds,  the  Sacraments,  and  the 
Historic  Episcopate  are  the  ancient  conditions  of  unity.  They 
are  the  only  imaginable  conditions  for  its  restoration.  The 
Council  of  Nicaea  has  claims  on  all  Christians,  and  whatever  is 
subversive  of  the  organized  unity  recognized  by  all  the  world 
when  it  bore  its  witness  to  CHRIST,  is  not  Catholic  but  schis- 
matical.  We  ask  none  of  our  fellow-Christians  to  come  over  to 
us ;  we  say,  "  Let  us  all  meet  in  old  Nicaea."  If  we  discover  that 
we  are  deficient  in  any  respect,  when  tried  by  that  standard,  let 
us,  each  for  himself,  seek  to  remedy  his  own  defects.  Let  the 
spirit  of  fraternal  love  animate  us  in  all  our  relations  with  others 
who  cherish  a  similar  spirit,  however  imperfectly  they  may 
seem  to  develop  it.  By  prayer,  and  by  the  grace  and  provi- 
dence of  God,  we  shall  be  brought  by  converging  lines  to  a 
common  centre,  in  God's  good  time.  To  some  the  process 
will  be  comparatively  easy ;  the  Moravians  may  find  it  much 
less  of  a  task,  for  example,  than  the  Baptists,  though  possibly 
the  reverse  may  be  practically  true,  for  the  Baptists  practise,  in 
administering  baptism,  what  seems  more  in  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  all  primitive  antiquity.  We,  in  turn,  may  be  justly 
reproached  for  much  that  is  inconsistent  with  our  own  profes- 
sions;   and  we   may   not  repel,  we  rather  invite  the   rejoinder, 


Historic  Presbyteriafis,  1 5  7 

"  Physician,  heal  thyself."     In  short,  truth  is  to   be   sought  and 
followed  for  its  own  sake ;    and  he  who   accepts   this   as  the  law 
of  his  life,  is  already  a  Catholic  at  heart.      "Ye   shall   kn(nv  the 
truth,  and  the  truth  shall   make  you   free."      Such   is  the  enno- 
bling charter  of  the  sons  of  Goi)  ;  and  it  includes  a  promise  that 
should  prompt  all  of  us  to  effort  for  securing  the  result.     It  is 
something  to  believe  in  Christ's  promises  and  in  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  make  them  good  to  all  believers.     It  is  a 
great  thing  to  make  one's  life  a  contribution  to  this  end,  though 
it  may  seem  unattainable.     And  if,  as  the  mathematicians  inform 
us,  there  are  lines  that  can  never  meet,  though  perpetually  con- 
verging, let  us  be  sure  that  even  such  lines  are  a  parable,  and 
intimate  that  it  is  well  to  move  in  the  right  direction    at   least, 
because  there  is  a  life  eternal,  where  what  is  aimed   at  in  this 
world  is  sure  to  be  realized.      For  one,  I   do  not  think  there  is 
any  probability  of  Catholic  welding  among  us,  save  through  the 
fiery  trial  of  persecution,  and  under  the  hammer  of  tremendous 
visitations  of  Providence ;   but  such  trials  uiay  be  near  at  Jiand. 
Irreligion  and  alien  invasion   are   multiplying  the  perils  of  our 
common  country.     What  happened  in  PVance  a  hundred  years 
ago  may  warn  us  that  we  are  not  invulnerable.     The  uprising 
of  wage-earners  against  the  capitalist  is  but  a  token  of  what 
may  be  preparing  in  other  complications.     A  general  distrust 
of  our  politicians  and  governors  forebodes  a  coming  failure  of 
all  law,  when  the  white  heat  of  popular  passion  shall  try  every 
man's  work.     Our  indifference  to  religion  as  it  already  exists 
may  well  remind  us  that  the  nation  and  people   that  will   not 
serve   God  must  perish  by  His  judgments. 

A.  Cleveland  Coxe. 


m)z  f  iistoric  Cptsicopate* 

Right  PvEV.  William  Croswell  Doane,  D  D.,  LL.D., 
Bishop  of  Albany. 

1  PROPOSE  to  treat  in  this  paper  two  questions, — Jirs^, ''  What 
we  find  about  the  Historic  Episcopate ;  "  and  secondly, 
"  Why  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  it."  It  is  the  case  of 
an  old  friend,  or  to  some  people  an  old  foe,  with  a  new  face. 
The  long  controversy  has  changed  in  many  ways,  prominently 
and  particularly  in  terminology.  The  "  Apostolic  succession," 
which  used  to  be  ridiculed  as  a  matter  of  magic  and  mummery, 
has  got  to  be  a  question  of  history  and  fact;  and  the  evidence 
of  this  is  partly  in  the  very  change  of  terms.  I  may  as  well 
say  that  I  firmly  believe  that  CHRIST  ordained  the  Historic 
Episcopate  when  He  ordained  the  Apostolate ;  that  the  one 
included  and  involved  the  other ;  so  that  it  does  not  seem  to 
me  to  make  an  iota  of  difference  when  the  Apostles  set  apart 
men  for  the  carrying  on  of  the  work  which  CHRIST  had  assigned 
to  them  to  do.  The  only  question  is,  whether  Xh^y  did  it;  for 
it  is  incredible  to  me  that  they  should  have  dared  to  invent,  and 
intrude  into  the  polity  of  the  Church  (that  is  to  say,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Kingdom  of  GOD  on  earth),  anything  of  their  own 
origination.  And  it  being  once  granted  that  Bishops  are  found 
ijt  the  Apostolic  age,  by  Apostolic  appointment,  and  with  Apos- 
tolic authority,  —  or,  to  put  it  more  mildly,  zvithoiU  indignant 
Apostolic  protest, — it  seems  to  me  to  follow  inevitably  that 
Bishops  were  of  CHRIST'S  own  appointment.  It  is  certainly  a 
geological  fact  that  in  the  earliest  stratum  of  the  most  ancient 
earth  the  oldest  fossil  relic  is  the  trilobite,  which  is  a  three- 
lobed  or  threefold  thing.  I  believe  it  can  be  as  thoroughly 
proven  that  in  the  most  ancient  stratum  of  the  Holy  Land  — 
the  oldest  part  and  age,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Christian  Church 
—  the  trilobite  exists,  in  the  threefold  ministry  of  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons,  —  the  first  living  organism  of  the  Church. 
This  is  the  first  point  to  be  proved,  or  at  any  rate,  that  there 
existed  an  Order  (/3a^/xos-,  S.  Paul  calls  it,  which  we  translate 


The  1 1  is  lor  ic  Jipiscopale.  159 

"  degree,"  but  by  vvhicli  the  IC.istcrn  Church  has  always 
described  tlie  Orders  of  the  ministry),  —  an  Order  of  men,  set 
apart  for  the  two  great  acts  of  governing  and  perj)etLialing  the 
ministry. 

The  statement  which  for  a  good  many  years  lias  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  English  Ordinal  is  certainly  a  challenge,  hitherto 
not  successfully  contested,  of  this  truth.  *'  It  is  evident  unto  all 
men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors 
that  from  the  AposUes'  time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of 
ministers  in  CHRIST'S  Church:  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons." 
It  looks  a  little  bit  as  if  the  h:nglish  Church  meant  by  this  to  say 
that  if  people  have  not  found  these  three  Orders  it  is  because  they 
have  either  not  read  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors  tiv^ctJicr, 
or  else  they  have  not  read  them  diligently.  I  am  glad  to  say 
that  Bishop  Lightfoot  has  attained  such  an  honorable  reputation 
for  thoroughness  of  research,  and  for  impartiality  of  judgment, 
that  one  can  safely  appeal  to  him  as  an  authority  respected 
even  by  those  who  are  not  willing  to  accept  or  to  act  upon  his 
conclusions.  His  vindication  of  the  authenticity  and  authority 
of  the  Ignatian  Epistles  is  one  of  the  great  masterpieces  of 
honest  and  clear-headed  criticism  in  the  nineteenth  century; 
and  in  his  Commentaries  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  he 
says:  *' The  result  of  my  investigation  into  the  origin  of  the 
Christian  ministry  has  been  a  confirmation  of  the  statement  in 
the  English  Ordinal."  Over  and  over  again  he  emphasizes  this. 
For  example  :  **The  threefold  ministry  can  be  traced  to  Apostolic 
direction  ;  "  and  again  :  "  Unless  we  have  recourse  to  a  sweeping 
condemnation  of  received  documents,  it  seems  vain  to  deny  that 
early  in  the  second  century  the  Episcopal  office  w^as  firmly  and 
widely  established.  Thus  during  the  last  three  decades  of  the 
first  century,  and  consequently  during  the  lifetime  of  the  last 
surviving  Apostle,  this  change  must  have  been  brought  about  " 
(that  is  to  sa}%  from  a  Presbyterate  governed  by  Apostles  to  a 
Diocesan  Episcopacy).  And  still  again:  *' The  evidence  for 
the  early  and  wide  extension  of  Episcopacy  through  pro- 
consular Asia  may  be  considered  irrefragable."  When  you  add 
to  this  the  fact  that  proconsular  Asia  was  the  scene  of  S. 
John's  life  and  labors  to  the  end,  there  comes  a  very  marked 
emphasis  to  the  matter  of  our  LORD'S  intention  ;  for  certainly 
the  Apostle  whom  jESUS  loved  could  not  have  suffered  the 
existence  and  extension  of  an  institution  in  the  Church,  which 


i6o  The  Church  Review.    . 

was  not  according  to  **the  mind  of  CHRIST."  We  do  not  won- 
der that  Lightfoot  should  add  :  "  The  prevalence  of  Episcopacy 
cannot  be  disassociated  from  the  influence  and  sanction  of  the 
Apostles ;  and  short  of  an  express  statement,  we  can  possess  no 
better  assurance  of  a  Divine  appointment,  or  at  least  of  a  Divine 
sanction." 

I  desire  to  add,  in  connection  with  this  same  region  of  the 
world,  what  always  seemed  to  me  a  very  strong  bit  of  historical 
evidence  in  the  same  direction.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Fourth 
General  Council  held  at  Chalcedon  A.  D.  451,  in  the  course  of  a 
debate  respecting  the  filling  up  of  the  Ephesian  Bishopric  which 
had  been  declared  vacant,  Leontius,  Bishop  of  Magnesia,  made 
the  statement:  "That  from  Timothy  to  the  time  then  present, 
there  had  been  twenty-seven  Bishops  of  that  See,  all  of  whom 
had  been  ordained  in  Ephesus    itself"  ^ 

I  am  quite  well  aware  that  this  question  of  the  Diocesan 
Episcopate,  as  illustrated  by  S.  Timothy's  appointment  to 
Ephesus,  is  a  somewhat  mooted  point,  and  that  Bishop  Light- 
foot,  from  whom  any  one  would  hesitate  to  differ,  considers  his 
office  "  rather  a  movable  than  a  localized  Episcopate,  so  far  as 
the  Gentile  Churches  were  concerned."  But  the  localized  or 
Diocesan  Episcopate  among  the  Hebrew  Christians  seems  to 
me  hardly  to  admit  of  a  doubt,  for  S.  James,  who  presided 
in  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  was  either  one  of  the  twelve  (which 
I  do  not  believe),  —  and  if  he  was,  then  we  have  certainly  the 
case  of  an  Apostle  set  apart  as  a  Diocesan  Bishop  and  pre- 
siding over  a  single  See, — or  else  he  was  not  an  Apostle  at 
all;  in  which  case  we  have  an  instance  of  a  Diocesan  Bishop, 
in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  presiding  over  them,  their  equal 
in  order  because  he  was  a  Bishop,  and  their  superior  in  local 
dignity,  because  he  was  the  Bishop  of  the  See  city  in  which  the 
Council  met. 

Of  course  it  is  perfectly  possible  that  Episcopacy  grew  "  by 
way  of  development,  as  the  needs  of  the  extending  Church  de- 
manded it."  So  did  the  Diaconate.  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
that,  that  it  w^as  not  according  to  the  polity  of  our  LORD.  In- 
deed, we  must  always  use  that  word  *'  development,"  not  in  the 
sense  of  the  discovery  and  promulgation  of  something,  without, 


1  Labbe,  Concilia  iv.   p.  700;    quoted  by   Bishop  Charles   Wordsworth  in   his 
invaluable  treatise,  Outlines  of  the  Christiatt  Ministry. 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  iGi 

if  not  against,  the  original  and  Divine  plan.  A  thing  must  be 
^/^vcloped  first,  in  order  that  it  may  be  /'/^veloped  afterward.  And 
there  are  various  positive  and  important  steps,  recorded  in  the 
book  of  the  Acts  as  taken  by  the  Apostles  not  in  a  slow,  doubt- 
ful, hesitating  way,  but  positively  and  promptly,  as.  men  act 
who  have  been  thoroughly  trained  and  prepared  for  emergen- 
cies which  arise.  One  of  these  I  propose  to  speak  of  in  detail, 
as  answering  the  second  question  of  the  two  which  head  this 
article;  namely,  why  we  should  expect  to  find  the  Historic 
Episcopate.  I  mean  the  ordinance,  certainly  Sacramental  in  its 
character,  which  is  called  "  the  laying  on  of  hands."  The 
others  will  naturally  suggest  themselves,  —  the  change  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  from  the  evening  Passover 
to  the  morning  Eucharist;  the  institution  of  the  Diaconate ;  and 
the  resort  to  a  Council  representing  the  whole  Church  as  the 
method  of  settling  t;ny  question  of  doctrine  or  order. 

And  now  as  to  the  holy  ordinance  known  in  Holy  Scripture 
as  *'  the  laying  on  of  hands,"  which  has  received,  in  the  whole 
Western  Church  for  nearly  twelve  centuries,  the  name  of  Con- 
firmation ;  the  Eastern  Church  calling  it  the  Seal  of  the  Lord, 
or  the  Unction.  Our  own  name,  venerable  both  for  antiquity 
and  for  such  authority  as  that  of  S.  Ambrose  and  S.  Greg- 
ory, is  chiefly  admirable  because  it  is  specific,  —  laying  on 
of  hands  being  of  course  used,  not  merely  for  confirming  the 
grace  and  vow  of  the  baptized,  but  for  conveying  Holy  Orders, 
and  indeed  for  any  solemn  act  of  benediction.  My  conviction 
and  contention  about  this  matter  is,  that  if  we  can  find  it  in 
Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors  required,  and  confined,  so 
far  as  its  administration  goes,  to  one  Order  of  the  ministry,  it 
must  mean  that  we  shall  also  find  the  Order  of  the  ministry 
authorized  to   administer  it. 

Let  me  begin  by  saying  that  the  argument  for  the  institution 
of  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  CHRIST  Himself,  runs,  as  do  so 
many  arguments  of  a  similar  sort,  in  parallel  lines  of  what  in 
one  way  were  parallel  lives.  The  action  of  S.  Peter  (S.  John 
being  associated  with  him)  in  Samaria,  immediately  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  as  illustrating  the  doctrine  of  S.  Peter  in  the 
sermon  preached  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  is  to  be  studied  side 
by  side  with  the  action  of  S.  Paul  in  the  city  of  Ephesus,  as  illus- 
trating tl>c  doctrine  wdiich  I  believe  S.  Paul  taught  to  the  He- 
brew Christians,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  I  believe 


1 62  The  Church  Review, 

S.  Paul  wrote.  And  before  I  proceed  to  put  these  four  things 
side  by  side,  I  must  urge  the  importance  of  remembering  how 
absolutely  independent  S.  Paul's  testimony  is.  What  he  did 
and  what  he  taught,  he  learned  "  neither  from  men  nor  by  man," 
but  by  direct  revelation  from  our  LORD  Himself  So  that  he  was 
"  no  whit  behind  the  chiefest  Apostles "  in  his  ability  to  say 
that  he  was  teaching  men  '*  to  observe  whatsoever  CHRIST  had 
commanded  him."  And  every  witness  of  his,  if  I  may  so  say,  is 
therefore  clear  gain ;  so  m.uch  extra  light  thrown  on  our  Lord's 
plan  of  teaching  and  work. 

When  S.  Peter,  in  Samaria,  preached  the  first  Christian  ser- 
mon in  answer  to  that  great  question  of  the  interested  multitude, 
it  always  seemed  to  me  that  he  told  them  to  do  tJirce  things  and 
not  two ;  that  is  to  say,  when  he  said,  ''Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized, andyQ  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  HOLY  Ghost,"  I  am 
quite  sure  he  did  not  mean  that  the  HOLY  Ghost  was  to  come 
to  them  in  Holy  Baptism. 

Because,  in  the  first  place,  when  the  news  came  to  him  of  the 
conversion  of  the  Samaritans,  and  of  their  baptism  by  Philip 
the  Deacon,  he  and  S.  John  went  down  immediately  to  Samaria, 
and  '*  laid  their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  HOLY 
Ghost  ;  "  and  S.  Luke  adds,  by  way  of  emphasis  and  explana- 
tion, "  for  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them,  only  they  were 
baptized."  It  seems  to  me  an  irresistible  conclusion,  therefore, 
that  we  have  doctrine  and  practice  side  by  side  in  S.  Peter's  ser- 
mon, "  Ye  shall  receive  the  HOLY  GHOST,"  and  in  S.  Peter's  act 
in  the  confirmation  of  the  baptized  Samaritans.  And  that  this 
was  not  local,  isolated,  or  temporary,  one  gathers  from  the  fact 
that  in  speaking  of  the  duty  of  receiving  the  HOLY  Ghost,  S. 
Peter  says,  "  The  promise  to  you  and  to  your  children,  ajid  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  LORD  our  GoD  shall  call." 
I  do  not  go  into  any  argument,  because  it  is  needless,  and  out 
of  place  here,  to  prove  that  this  laying  on  of  hands  was  not  for 
the  conveyance  of  miraculous  gifts  alone.  There  are  three 
things  to  be  noted  in  such  a  transaction,  —  the  gift,  the  sign, 
and  the  result.  And  they  are  all  different.  The  gift  is  the 
Holy  Ghost  ;  the  sign  is  the  laying  on  of  hands ;  the  result 
may  be,  or  may  not  be,  miraculous.  Certainly,  if  one  gathers 
anything  from  what  S.  Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians  (and 
nobody  knew  better  than  he  the  value  of  miraculous  gifts), 
the    manifestation  of  the  SPIRIT  is  various;    and  the  word  of 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  163 

wisdom,  the  word  of  knowledge  and  faith,  are  put  in  the  same 
catalo<^ue  with,  and  put  before,  heahni;  and  miracles  and  divers 
kinds  of  tongues. 

Now  take  the  other  case.  S.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Hebrew 
Christians  a  description  of  what  he  calls  the  "  principles  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  includes  among  the  six,  and  as  the 
fourth,  the  laying  on  of  hands.  What  did  he  mean  by  it? 
Let  him  answer  the  question  himself,  and  explain  his  teach- 
ing, as  S.  Peter  explained  his,  by  his  practice.  He  went 
down  to  Ephesus,  and  finding  twelve  men  there,  believers  so  far 
as  they  had  knowledge  of  the  truth,  he  first  taught  them  the  doc- 
trine of  baptisms  by  his  practice;  that  is,  he  showed  them 
the  difference  between  the  merely  formal  and  external  rite  of 
S.  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  spiritual  and  interior  baptism 
which  he  gave  them.  And  then  also  by  his  practice  he 
taught  them  the  doctrine  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  for  he  pro- 
ceeded to  confirm  them,  as  we  would  say,  just  as  S.  Peter 
did  at  Jerusalem,  and  '*  they  received  the  HOLY  Ghost." 

I  go  back  now  to  the  point  from  which  I  started.  S.  Paul 
calls  this  "  a  principle  of  the  doctrine  of  CHRIST."  He  could 
only  have  known  of  it  from  CHRIST  Himself.  In  like  manner, 
S.  Peter,  as  one  of  those  who  also  *'  had  the  mind  of  ClIRlST," 
acts  in  this  matter,  not  proprio  viotn,  but  according  to  the  teach- 
ings which  he  and  the  other  Apostles  had  received  during  the 
years  of  intimate  association  before  our  LORD'S  death,  and  during 
the  great  forty  days  which  our  LORD  spent  with  the  Apostles, 
principally  **  teaching  them  the  things  concerning  the  Kingdom 
of  God;"  and  then  by  the  motion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  was 
sent  to  *'  call  to  their  remembrance"  the  things  that  Christ 
had  taught  them,  in  order  that  they  might  be  both  guarded  and 
guided  to  fulfil  the  great  commission ;  to  teach  baptised  people 
**  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  commanded  them." 
Who  shall  presume  to  say  that  **  this  laying  on  of  hands"  was 
not  one  of  the  things  which  they  were  commanded  to  teach  all 
baptized  people  to  observe?  If  anybody  objects  to  this  that 
it  makes  Confirmation  a  Sacrament,  I  have  only  to  say  that 
this  is  no  objection.  The  only  objection  would  be  for  us  as 
Churchmen,  if  we  put  it  on  a  level  with  the  two  great  Sacra- 
ments. For  it  is  mere  carelessness  of  speech  not  to  remember 
that  the  only  thing  which  this  Church  teaches  is  that  CHRIST 
has  ordained  only  two  Sacraments  as  **  generally  necessary  to 


164  The  Church  Review. 

salvation,"  which  proves,  not  that  Confirmation  is  not  a  Sacra- 
ment, but  only  that  it  is  7iot  necessary  to  salvation. 

Under  this  presentation  of  the  case,  it  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  any  words  of  mine  are  needed  to  bring  the  argument  to  the 
focal  point  of  its  application.  If  Confirmation  is  "  a  principle  of 
the  doctrine  of  CHRIST,"  and  if  its  administration,  by  historical 
evidence,  was  confined  to  the  Apostles,  it  stands  to  reason  that 
the  office  appointed  to  administer  it  must  necessarily  be  con- 
tinued in  the  Church  of  CHRIST;  and  this  is  why  we  should 
expect  to  find  what  for  convenience'  sake  is  called  the  Historic 
Episcopate,  perpetuated  in  the  Church. 

William  Croswell  Doane. 


iOljat  i^  meant  h)}  ti)c  ''  l^i^tonc  (episcopate  *'  in  the 
iit^ohitioxx^  of  tlje  l)ou.0e  of  23x0l3op^  in  1886, 
anD  tl)e  itanibetl)  Conference  of  1888. 

Right  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.C.L. 
Bishop  of  Iowa  and  Historiographer  of  the  Ameri- 
can Church. 

THE  general  acquiescence  of  Christian  bodies  and  indi- 
viduals in  the  first,  second,  and  third  resolutions  proposed 
by  the  Lambeth  Conference  of  1888  as  the  basis  of  Christian 
reunion,  leaves  the  fourth  resolution  as  the  one  around  which 
the  controversy  centres.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  Historic 
Episcopate  referred  to  by  the  Bishops  assembled  at  Lambeth, 
and  earlier  by  the  Bishops  gathered  at  Chicago?  It  would 
seem  from  the  various  interpretations  given  to  this  phrase  that 
it  requires  explanation  and  authoritative  definition  to  remove 
ambiguity  and  emphasize  its  true  meaning. 

It  is  claimed  that  Churchmen  themselves  are  not  agreed  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  Historic  Episcopate.  It  is  said  that  "  the 
Greek  Church  will  not  agree  with  the  Roman  "  as  to  the  His- 
toric Episcopate,  and  that  "  neither  of  these  will  agree  with  the 
Anglican."  In  view  of  ''  this  discord,"  it  is  asserted  that  the 
'*  Bishops,  differing  among  themselves  in  their  theory  of  the 
Episcopate,  could  not  lay  down  a  basis  for  the  reunion  of 
Christendom  that  would  involve  any  particular  theory  of  the 
Episcopate."  It  is  further  urged  that  **  they  could  only  mean 
that  which  was  essential  to  the  Historic  Episcopate,  —  that  to 
which  divines  like  Hatch,  Lightfoot,  and  Gore  could  agree." 

The  able  and  accomplished  controversialist  whose  words  we 
have  cited,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  of  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  of  the  city  of  New  York,  adds  to  his 
deductions  the  following  words :  — 

The  view  that  I  have  taken  of  the  meaning  of  the  Historic  Episcopate 
as  proposed  by  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  Lambeth  Conference  as 


1 66  The  Church  Review, 

the  fourth  term  of  union  is  confirmed  by  one  who  seems  to  speak  with 
authority.  Dr.  Vincent,  the  Assistant- Bishop  .of  Southern  Ohio,  tells 
us  plainly,  — 

Nothing  is  said  here  of  Episcopacy  as  of  Divine  institution  or  necessity,  nothing 
of  '  Apostolic  succession,'  nothing  of  a  Scriptural  origin  or  a  doctrinal  nature  in 
the  institution.  It  is  expressly  proposed  here  only  in  its  '  historical  character ' 
and  as  'locally  adapted  to  the  varying  needs  of  God's  people.'  All  else,  unless  it 
be  its  Scripturalness,  is  matter  of  opinion  to  which  this  Church  has  never  formally 
committed  herself.  Her  position  here  is  the  same  broad  and  generous  one  taken 
in  the  Preface  to  her  Ordinal.  That  phrase  '  the  Historic  Episcopate,'  was  de- 
liberately chosen  as  declaring  not  a  doctrine,  but  a  fact,  and  as  being  general  enough 
to  include  all  variants  ^  {^An  Address  on  Christian  Unity,  p.  29]. 

"  This  platform,"  proceeds  Dr.  Briggs,  ''  thus  interpreted,  is 
broad  enough  and  strong  enough  for  the  feet  of  Presbyterians; 
and  it  contains  nothing  to  which  they  can  rightly  object." 

In  other  words,  the  non-Episcopal  Churches  are  willing  to 
consider  and  accept  the  Historic  Episcopate,  if  it  is  regarded 
not  as  existing  y//;r  diviiio,  but  simply  ?i?>  jtire  hitmano,  and  as 
not  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  though  as  impor- 
tant for  its  well-being. 

Elsewhere  in  the  able  and  temperate  article  from  which  we 
have  quoted.  Dr.  Briggs  seems  to  consider  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate as  related  solely  to  the  government  and  discipline  of  the 
Church  ;  and  he  evidently  regards  the  language  of  the  Assistant- 
Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio  as  conceding  that  the  Historic  Epis- 
copate, as  understood  by  the  House  of  Bishops  at  Chicago  and 
the  Lambeth  Conference,  is  to  be  regarded  simply  as  being 
jure  humano,  and  as  "  not  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
Church,"  though  "  important  for  its  well-being."  He  proceeds 
further  to  eliminate  from  the  idea  of  the  Historic  Episcopate 
all  claim  to  the  existence  of  a  threefold  ministry,  and  all  pre- 
tence that  '*  Bishops  had.  any  exclusive  Divine  right  or  historic 
right  to  transmit  the  Episcopal  Order."  The  Bishops  of  this 
Historic  Episcopate  are  to  ''  be  simply  the  executive  officers  of 
the  Church,  chosen  by  the  presbyteries."  In  other  words, 
when  the  Historic  Episcopate  is  made  un-historic  and  un- 
Episcopal ;  when  the  term  becomes  synonymous  with,  and 
means  no  more  than,  the  phrase  of  Dr.  Briggs'  coinage  or 
adoption,  "the  Historic  Presbyter,"  —  then  there  will  be  Chris- 

1  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Assistant-Bishop  of  Ohio  was  not  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Bishops  in  1886,  nor  in  attendance  upon  the  Lambeth  Conference 
of  1888. 


IV/ui/  is  nuant  by  the  "  Historic  Episcopal  /'       167 

tian  union;    f)!"  then  all  icill  be  Presbyterians,  a  consummation, 
in  the  Professor's  view,  doubtless  devoutly  to  be  wished  {ox. 

\\c  turn  from  such  a  rcductio  ad  absnrduvi  to  the  vell-con- 
sidered,  and  in  our  view  unambiguous,  words  of  the  Lambeth 
resolution,  reaffirming  the  language  of  the  Mouse  of  Bishops 
at   Chicago :  — 

The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  adminis- 
tration to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  God  into 
the  unity  of  His  Church. 

As  present,  and  voting  for  this  proposition,  both  in  Chicago 
and  at  Lambeth,  I  am  confident  that  I  comprehend  the  nature 
of  the  resolution  as  it  was  understood  by  the  great  body  of  the 
Bishops  in  1886;  while  from  my  clear  recollections  of  the 
debates  in  1888  at  Lambeth,  and  from  notes  made  at  the  time, 
as  well  as  from  the  closest  scrutiny  of  all  that  has  subsequently 
appeared  in  print  respecting  this  momentous  discussion,  about 
which  more  has  been  revealed  than  with  regard  to  any  other 
action  of  the  Conference,  I  am  confident  that  I  can  correctly 
represent  and  report  what  the  Bishops  at  Lambeth  said  and 
did  and  meant. 

That  any  theory  or  definition  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  was 
intended  by  the  American  Bishops  inconsistent  with  the  call  of 
God  to  all  nations  and  peoples  to  the  unity  of  His  Chnrcli,  is 
certainly  untenable.  That  there  was  a  Church  —  the  Church 
of  Christ,  existing,  visible,  militant,  upon  the  earth  —  was  the 
belief  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Bishops  assembled  at  Chicago, 
if  it  was  not  the  conviction  of  every  member  of  this  body.  That 
the  Historic  Episcopate  existed  in  direct,  continuous  succession 
from  the  Apostles'  times ;  that  the  existence  of  the  threefold 
ministry,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  was  to  be  traced  to 
Apostolic  days;  and  that  as  Lightfoot  claimed,  this  "threefold 
ministry"  can  be  traced  to  Apostolic  direction,  and,  to  quote 
the  same  great  authority,  that  ''  short  of  an  express  statement, 
we  can  possess  no  better  assurance  of  a  Divine  appointment,  or 
at  least  a  Divine  sanction,"  ^ — was  indisputably  the  conviction 
of  every  Bishop  at  Chicago  and,  we  are  confident,  of  every  Bishop 
at  Lambeth,  with  possibly  two  or  three  exceptions.  That  to 
this  Church  thus  constituted,  thus  **  built  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  jESUS  CHRIST  Himself  being  the 

'   Liirhtfoot's  Dissertation  on  the  Christian  ^finistry,  p.  265. 


1 68  The  Church  Review.     • 

chief  corner-stone,"  was  promised  the  presence  of  its  LORD  and 
Master  for  all  time  to  come,  and  "that  from  the  Apostles' 
time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of  Ministers  in  CHRIST'S 
Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons," — we  believe  to  be 
the  conviction  of  every  Bishop  in  the  world.  That  for  the  return 
to  unity  of  those  long  separated  and  estranged,  —  schismatics  in 
fact,  though  often  not  in  intent  or  even  in  guilt,  —  the  Historic 
Episcopate,  confessedly  flexible  in  its  administration,  might  be 
adapted  to  varied  circumstances,  even  to  the  provision  of  a 
Bishop  for  every  large  centre  of  population  —  if  this  return  to 
what  Professor  Briggs  styles  the  "  parochial  Bishops  "  is  de- 
sired ;  if  this  adaptation  or  accommodation  of  the  Historic  Epis- 
copate might  effect  the  longed-for  return  to  unity,  —  this  was  the 
wish,  the  purpose,  the  prayer  of  the  great  body  of  the  Chicago 
and  the  Lambeth  Bishops.  Views  inconsistent  with  this  under- 
standing of  the  proposition  were  not  even  breathed  by  any 
Bishop  at  Chicago.  If  the  words  then  adopted  in  the  mind  of 
any  Bishop  committed,  or  seemed  to  commit,  the  Church  to 
the  jnre  Juimano  theory  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  and  the 
threefold  ministry,  it  is  a  matter  of  history  that  such  a  concep- 
tion was  rigorously  repressed.  No  one  of  the  Bishops  uttered, 
no  one  urged  such  a  view  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  as  that 
deduced  by  Dr.  Briggs  from  the  language  of  the  Lambeth 
resolution  or  as  this  resolution  is  interpreted  by  the  Assistant- 
Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio.  Such  a  view  of  the  Historic  Episco- 
pate would  certainly  have  stultified  our  very  position  as  Bishops 
of  the  Church  of  GOD,  and  would  have  committed  the  House 
to  a  revolutionary  scheme  at  variance  not  alone  with  history, 
with  precedent,  with  fact,  but  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
American  Church,  with  our  Ordinal,  with  our  constant  canoni- 
cal practice  of  reordaining  all  applicants  for  Holy  Orders  not 
already  Episcopally  ordained,  and  with  our  consecration  vows. 
Nor  this  alone.  Action  predicated  on  such  a  view  of  the  His- 
toric Episcopate  as  is  deduced  by  Dr.  Briggs  from  the  Chicago- 
Lambeth  resolution  would  widen  the  breach  now  existing 
between  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Anglican  Communion 
claiming  the  Episcopal  succession  and  inviting  the  fullest  in- 
vestigation as  to  the  validity  of  their  claim,  —  a  claim  in  these 
latest  days  of  historical  research  put  forth  by  Lightfoot  and 
admitted  by  Von  DoUinger,  and  the  Churches  of  Latin 
Christendom  as  well  as    those  of  the  East.     The  comprehen- 


What  is  rncaiit  by  the  ''Historic  RpiscopatcT       i6n 

sion  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Cluirchcs  into  this  unity  of  God's 
Church  seems  in  no  way  a  matter  of  concern  to  Dr.  l^ri^^^^s. 
In  his  desire  to  minimize  the  conception  of  the  Historic  lCpisc(j- 
pate,  to  make  it  practically  another  form  of  Presbyterianism, 
Dr.  Brii^fjs  would  commit  the  Bishops  to  a  concession  that  the 
Church's  position  on  this  point  has  been  for  years  more  than 
a  blunder,  practically  a  sin.  Nor  is  this  all.  Were  terms  of 
union  such  as  Dr.  Briggs  deduces  from  the  Lambeth  resolution 
seriously  entertained  by  the  Anglican  Bishops,  the  non-Episco- 
pal Christian  organizations  would  lose  the  only  possible  means 
of  ever  comprehending  in  the  united,  the  Catholic,  the  uni- 
versal Church  of  Christ  the  communion  of  all  saints  everywhere 
in  the  world,  that  vast  majority  of  Christians  who  recognize 
Episcopacy  as  a  fact,  and  therefore  as  a  rule.  Even  in  the 
United  States,  which  seems  to  bound  the  horizon  of  Dr.  BricTG^s' 
vision,  with  the  adoption  of  Presbyterianism,  the  reduction  of 
the  historic  Bishop  to  a  simple  presbyter,  the  rejection  of  the 
Apostolical  succession,  the  disuse  of  the  threefold  ministry, 
the  denial  of  the  grace  of  Orders,  the  sundering  of  the  tie 
binding  the  Bishop,  Priest,  and  Deacon  to  the  Shepherd  and 
Bishop  of  souls,  —  to  Him  who  was  also  an  Elder,  to  Him 
who  came  as  a  Deacon  to  minister,  — the  strife  with  Rome  would 
be  ended,  but  ended  in  an  ignominious  surrender  of  that  which 
alone,  even  in  the  view  of  intelligent  Romanists  themselves, 
makes  the  Anglican  Church  and  its  American  daughter  the 
possible  ground  for  the  reunion  of  all  Christendom.  Nor  would 
union  with  the  great  body  of  Latin  Christianity  alone  be  im- 
possible. The  Greek  Church,  which  has  drawn  nearer  and 
nearer  to  us  of  late,  the  Old  Catholics,  the  Jansenists,  and  all 
the  Churches  of  the  East  with  whom  Episcopacy  is  both  a  law 
and  a  fact,  would  be  repelled  from  us  forever. 

So  far  from  conceding  to  Dr.  Briggs  that  the  jure  divino 
theory  has  been  *'  slain  by  historical  criticism,"  and  that  the  New 
Testament  affords  no  proof  of  the  three  Orders  of  the  ministry, 
we  affirm  quite  the  opposite  opinion.  We  submit  in  defence  of 
our  position  the  well-considered  words  of  the  late  Bishop  of 
Durham,  Dr.  Lightfoot,  whose  position  Dr.  Briggs  seems  unable 
to  comprehend.  Starting  with  this  great  scholar's  statement 
that  "  history  seems  to  show  decisively  that  before  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  each  Church,  or  organized  Christian  com- 
munity, had  its  three  Orders  of  ministers,  —  its  Bishops,  its  Pres- 


170  The  CImrch  Review. 

byters,  and  its  Deacons,"  —  and  emphasizing  his  further  assertion 
that  "  on  this  point  there  cannot  reasonably  be  two  opinions," 
it  is  easy,  with  Lightfoot  as  our  guide,  to  reconstruct  the  jure 
divino  claim  for  the  Historic  Episcopate,  as  including  the  three- 
fold ministry  and  the  Apostolical  succession.  Commenting  on  the 
position  occupied  by  S.  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  in  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem,  Bishop  Lightfoot  states  his  conviction 
that  "  he  was  not  one  of  the  twelve,"  and  proceeds  to  assert 
that  ''  the  Episcopal  office  thus  existed  in  the  Mother  Church 
of  Jerusalem  from  very  early  days,  at  least  in  a  rudimentary 
form ;  "  while  the  government  of  the  Gentile  Churches,  though 
presenting,  in  the  Bishop's  view,  no  distinct  traces  of  a  similar 
organization,  exhibits  **  stages  of  development  tending  in  this 
direction."  Nor  is  this  all.  The  same  great  authority  assumes 
that  the  position  occupied  by  Timothy  and  Titus,  whom  he  char- 
acterizes as  *'  Apostolic-delegates,"  and  whom  Gore  regards  as 
''Apostolic  men,"  "fairly"  —  we  are  citing  Lightfoot's  conclu- 
sions—  "represents  the  functions  of  the  Bishop  early  in  the 
second  century."  Even  admitting  with  Lightfoot  —  whose  scru- 
pulous anxiety  "  not  to  overstate  the  evidence  in  any  case  "  led 
him  (to  quote  his  own  words)  to  use  "  partial  and  qualifying 
statements  prompted  by  this  anxiety,"  which,  as  he  expressly 
states,  "  assumes  undue  proportions  in  the  minds  of  some,"  even 
"  to  the  neglect  of  the  general  drift  of  the  essay  "  ^  —  that  "  James, 
the  Lord's  brother,  alone  within  the  period  compassed  by 
Apostolic  waitings  can  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  Bishop  in  the 
later  and  more  special  sense  oi  the  term,"  it  is  evident  that  he 
regards  this  instance  of  the  exercise  of  the  Episcopal  office  in 
"  very  early  days,"  even  in  the  New  Testament  period,  as  un- 
questionable. Conceding  with  Lightfoot  that  "  as  late,  therefore, 
as  the  year  70  no  distinct  signs  of  Episcopal  government  have 
appeared  in  Gentile  Christendom,"  we  must  acknowledge,  in  the 
language  of  the  same  authority,  that  "  unless  we  have  recourse  to 
a  sweeping  condemnation  of  received  documents,  it  seems  vain 
to  deny  that  early  in  the  second  century  the  Episcopal  office  was 
firmly  and  widely  established.  .  .  .  TJuls  diLving  the  last  three 
decades  of  the  first  century,  and  consequently  during  the  lifetime 
of  the  latest  surviving  Apostles,  this  change  must  Jvave  been 
brought  about!'  And  again  :  "  These  notices,  besides  establish- 
ing the  general  prevalence  of   Episcopacy,  .  .  .  establish  this 

^  Dissertation  on  the  Christian  Ministry. 


What  is  7ncant  by  the  "  Illsloric  Episcopaicr       i  7 1 

result  clearly,  that  its  maturcr  forms  are  seen  first  in  those  re^nons 
where  the  latest  survivin^t:^  Apostles,  more  especially  S.  J(jhn, 
fixed  their  abode,  and  at  a  time  wlien  its  prevalence  cannot  be 
dissociated  from  their  influence  and  sanction."  With  this  cumu- 
lative presentation  of  the  proofs  of  the  Historic  Episcopate 
from  the  writings  of  the  leadini^  scholar  of  the  age,  we  may 
well  cite  his  summing  u[)  of  the  whole  matter  in  these  pregnant 
v/ords :  "  If  the  preceding  investigation  is  substantially  correct, 
the  threefold  ministry  can  be  traced  to  Apostolic  direction  ;  and 
short  of  an  express  statement,  we  can  possess  no  better  assur- 
ance of  a  Divine  appointment,  or  at  least  a  Divine  sanction." 
To  these  words  the  same  great  scholar,  not  long  before  his 
lamented  death,  added  the  further  assertion  in  his  sermon  before 
the  Wolverhampton  Church  Congress  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land (and  consequently  the  American  Church)  has  "  retained  a 
form  of  Church  government  which  has  been  handed  down  in 
unbroken  continuity  from  the  Apostles'  times."  That  this  view 
of  the  Historic  Episcopate,  the  threefold  ministry,  and  the 
Church,  was  and  is  the  view  of  the  major  part  of  the  Anglican 
Episcopate  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  it  is  in  accord 
with  the  language  of  the  Ordinal,  with  the  requirement  of  Epis- 
copal ordination  found  in  the  Prayer-Book  and  in  the  Canons, 
and  especially  with  the  action  of  the  Lambeth  Conference,  which, 
so  far  from  approving  the  proposal  of  the  late  Metropolitan  of 
Sydney,  Dr.  Barry,  now  Suffragan  of  Rochester,  speaking  for 
the  Bishop  of  S.  Andrew's,  Dr.  Charles  Wordsworth,  to  admit 
temporarily  and  with  a  view  to  the  promotion  of  Christian 
union  the  validity  of  non-Episcopal  Orders,  refused  by  a  deci- 
sive vote  even  to  receive  the  report  containing  this  revolutionary 
sueeestion.  It  is  not  too  much  to  assert  that  the  scheme  of 
recognition  —  even  for  a  time,  and  that  too  with  a  view  to  the 
speedy  subsequent  discontinuance  of  all  distinctively  Presby- 
terian or  non-Episcopal  ordination  whatever  —  of  any  other 
ordination  than  that  received  at  the  hands  of  Bishops  would, 
had  it  obtained  the  votes  of  the  Conference,  have  tended  to  the 
immediate  disruption  of  the  Church.  Such  is  the  outspoken 
assertion  of  a  writer,  presumably  the  learned  Bishop  of  Edin- 
burgh, Dr.  Dowden,  in  an  able  article  on  this  subject  in  the 
(English)  CJlui'cJl  Quarterly  Review.  It  is  certain  that  it  would 
have  occasioned  the  immediate  withdrawal  from  the  Conference 
of  a  large  number  of  the  assembled  Bishops,  and   those  too  the 


172  The  Church  Review. 

most  noted  for  general  learning,  for  labors  for  the  cause  and 
Church  of  CHRIST,  and  for  theological  acumen  and  lore.  None 
present,  it  has  been  said,  will  forget  the  flashing  of  the  brilliant 
eyes,  the  contemptuous  curl  of  the  lips,  the  indignant  scorn  of 
expression,  and  the  eager  gesture  of  dissent,  with  which  the 
proposal  of  this  recognition  of  non-Episcopal  Orders  by  a  side 
wind,  and  the  historical  illustrations  with  which  it  was  at- 
tempted to  bolster  up  this  plan,  were  impatiently  listened  to 
by  the  one  man  of  vast  historical  learning,  and  the  one  chief 
authority  for  the  constitutional  history  of  England,  and  of  the 
English  Church,  which  the  Conference  contained.^  It  was  in 
this  connection,  and  during  the  debate  on  this  report,  that  the 
Bishop  of  Durham,  showing  in  his  voice  and  manner  that  the 
hand  of  death  was  already  upon  him,  took  occasion  in  his  expres- 
sion of  unqualified  opposition  to  this  scheme  to  "■  disclaim  wholly 
the  interpretation  which  the  Bishop  of  S.  Andrew's  "  had  '*  put 
upon  his  words,"  as  well  as  "  the  interpretation  given  them 
by  Presbyterian  controversialists."  The  Bishop  proceeded  to 
say,  and  no  one  who  was  present  can  forget  the  impressiveness 
of  his  words:  "  It  is  sometimes  convenient  to  extract  one  sen- 
tence from  a  long  essay,  all  of  which  is  meant  to  hinge  together, 
and  to  use  that  sentence  for  a  purpose."  It  was  a  testimony  to 
the  threefold  ministry  and  the  Historic  Episcopate  then  and  there 
solemnly  pronounced  which  but  a  few  days  later  this  distinguished 
scholar  and  prelate  reiterated  in  his  address  at  the  reopening  of 
the  historic  S.  Peter's  Chapel  at  Auckland  Castle.  The  Ameri- 
can Bishops,  with  but  a  single  exception,  spoke  or  voted  against 
the  reception  of  this  report.  And  the  testimony  of  the  young 
and  heroic  Bickersteth  of  Japan  as  to  the  **  fatal  effects "  of 
such  action  "on  the  work  in  the  mission  fields;"  his  further 
warning,  "  If  you  want  vigorous  self-sacrifice  for  the  Church 
abroad,  you  must  not  shake  the  foundations  of  the  Church  at 
home;"  and  his  prophetic  words,  "  It  will  have  no  influence;  it 
will  be  of  no  avail  ;  the  converts  from  heathenism  claim  valid- 
ity and  regularity,"  —  added  to  the  almost  unanimous  verdict  of 
the  Conference  against  this  measure.  So  strongly  was  this  the 
conviction  of  the  Conference  that  it  felt  called  upon  to  vary 
its  ordinary  mode  of  procedure,  and  ordered  the  report  to  be 
recommitted  with  what  was  practically  a  direction  to  excise  the 

1  The  then  Bishop  of  Chester,  Dr.  William  Stubbs,  since  translated  to  Oxford. 
Vide  Church  Quarterly  Review. 


What  is  mca7it  by  the  "  Historic  Episcopate''       i  73 

proposition  for  this  temporary  recoL^nition  of  non-lCpiscopal  Or- 
ders, originating  from  the  Bishop  of  S.  Andrew's,  and  supported 
by  the  present  Suffragan  of  Rochester. 

The  verdict  of  Von  Dolhnger  on  this  episode  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Conference  is  thus  expressed :  — 

Even  the  unfortunate  attempt  to  unsettle  so  fundamental  a  principle 
as  the  indispensableness  of  the  Episcopate  to  the  transmission  of  the 
ministerial  character  and  commission,  by  its  complete  failure  supplied  a 
useful  illustration  of  the  general  temper  of  the  Conference.  It  was 
the  passing  shadow  which  enabled  us  the  better  to  do  justice  to  the 
landscape. 

The  absolute  and  peremptory  refusal  by  an  overwhelming 
majority  even  so  much  as  to  entertain  a  proposition  that  seemed 
to  set  at  nought  such  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  Church's 
Apostolic  organization  as  the  Historic  Episcopate,  in  the  fullest 
sense  and  meaning,  must  be  considered  as  affording  sufficient 
answer  to  such  unwarranted  interpretations  of  the  Lambeth 
resolution  as  are  stated  by  Dr.  Briggs  and  supported  by  the 
authority  of  the  Assistant-Bishop  of  Southern  Ohio.  Our 
longings  for  union  must  not  lead  us  to  the  surrender  of  the 
great  trust  committed  to  us  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Church 
Catholic  of  CHRIST.  Concessions  involving  disloyalty  to 
revealed  truths,  to  Apostolic  practice,  and  to  primitive  belief, 
are  out  of  the  question.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  great 
and  overwhelming  majority  of  Christians  now  living  on  the 
earth  should  abandon  the  form  of  Church  government  which  has 
been  theirs  "  from  the  Apostles'  time,"  and  which  they  believe 
to  be  jure  divino,  with  a  view  of  comprehending  in  their  Com- 
munion a  few  most  excellent  and  devoted  Christian  bodies  or 
individuals  who  practically  recognize  no  visible  Church,  who 
deny  the  existence  of  the  threefold  ministry,  who  refuse  to  admit 
the  claims  of  the  Historic  Episcopate,  and  who  will  not  concede 
the  grace  of  Holy  Orders.  Thus  abandoning  the  Church's  van- 
tage ground,  we  might,  indeed,  add  to  our  numbers  a  small  gain, 
but  we  should  lose  the  greater  possibilities  which  may  GoD,  in 
His  good  time,  enable  us  to  realize  in  the  reunion  of  Christendom, 
—  the  bringing  together  of  all  Christian  men  and  peoples  in 
the  unity  of  God's  Church.    • 

William  Stevens  Perry. 


Right  Rev.  George  Franklin  Seymour,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Bishop  of  Springfield. 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture,  and 
ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these 
Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  —  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Dea- 
cons. Which  Offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend  Estimation, 
that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were  first 
called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as  are  requi- 
site for  the  same ;  and  also  by  public  Prayer,  with  Imposition  of  Hands, 
were  approved  and  admitted  thereunto  by  lawful  Authority.  And  there- 
fore, to  the  intent  that  these  Orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently 
used  and  esteemed  in  this  Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken 
to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to 
execute  any  of  the  said  Functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined, 
and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  Form  hereafter  following, 
or  hath  had  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination.  —  Preface  to  the 
Ordinal  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Extract  from  the  Cano?is. 

Title  I.  Canon  14.  No  Minister  in  charge  of  any  Congregation  of 
this  Church,  or,  in  case  of  vacancy  or  absence,  no  Churchwardens, 
Vestrymen,  or  Trustees  of  the  Congregation,  shall  permit  any  person  to 
officiate  therein,  without  sufficient  evidence  of  his  being  duly  licensed,  or 
ordained  to  minister  in  this  Church :  Provided,  that  nothing  herein  shall 
be  so  construed  as  to  forbid  communicants  of  the  Church  to  act  as  Lay 
Readers. 

I  IMAGINE  myself  surrounded  by  at  least  fifty  gentlemen, 
representing  as  many  different  Churches,  and  each  and  all 
claiming  that  their  Churches  are  respectively  the  most  excellent 
way,  if  not  exclusively  the  only  way,  of  salvation,  so  far  as  we 
know,  opened  and  prepared  by  CHRIST.  These  gentlemen  have 
spoken  at  greater  or  less  length  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
unity,  and  have  spoken  well,  and  in  excellent  spirit  and  temper; 
and  now  the  floor  is  conceded  to  me  for  a  brief  space,  and  I  am 
called  upon  to  address  the  assembly  present,  and  through  them 


TJic  Historic  lipiscopate.  175 

an  immense  concourse  beyond,  of  Christian  brethren  of  ever)' 
shade  and  variety  of  opinion.  " 

1  feel  the  weight  of  the  responsibihty  which  rests  upon  me  as 
the  champion  of  what  I  beUeve  to  be  the  truth  ;  and  I  am  anx- 
ious to  improve  my  opportunity  to  the  best  advantage  to  my 
brethren. 

I  would,  therefore,  as  far  as  I  can,  at  the  outset,  remove  pre- 
judice and  conciliate  kind  attention  and  consideration.  Of 
course  I  am  speaking  for  myself  alone,  although  I  am  convinced  I 
express  the  mind  of  the  Church  at  whose  altars  I  serve,  as  the 
humblest  of  her  ministers,  and  to  whose  lawful  judgment  in  this 
discussion,  as  in  all  similar  matters,  I  meekly  submit  myself. 

Again,  I  must  be  very  brief  upon  a  subject  immense  in 
itself,  upon  w^hich  hundreds  of  books  have  been  written,  and 
which,  beside  its  general  interest,  is  in  certain  aspects  of  its 
relation  to  Christian  unity  pressed  upon  our  notice  at  the 
present  time  with  great  ability  by  those  who  have  preceded  me. 
I  can  hope  therefore  to  do  little  more  than  write  what  the  law- 
yers would  call  "  a  brief,"  and  my  brethren  who  preach,  ''ser- 
mon notes."  I  am  the  more  w^illing  to  be  reconciled  to  this, 
to  me  at  least,  unsatisfactory  presentation  of  my  case  in  this 
*'  symposium,"  to  which  we  have  been  so  courteously  and  hos- 
pitably invited  by  the  CHURCH  Review,  because  I  can  respect- 
fully ask  my  brethren  one  and  all,  as  I  now  do,  to  listen  to  me  at 
much  greater  length  in  a  paper  prepared  at  the  request  of  the 
Church  Unity  Society,  and  published  and  circulated  by  their 
liberality. 

Addressing  myself  then  at  once  to  the  subject-matter  before 
us,  and  with  a  view  to  clear  the  ground  of  that  prejudice  which 
arises  in  most  cases,  I  am  persuaded,  from  misapprehension,  I 
would  state  that  I  am  convinced  that  Holy  Scripture  and  an- 
cient authors  and  the  universal  practice  of  Christendom  for 
fifteen  hundred  years,  interpreting  that  Scripture,  teach  that 
Christ  left  an  official  ministry  to  represent  Him  until  He  shall 
come  again  at  the  end  of  the  world  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead ;  and  further  that  He  accredits  this  ministry  to  mankind 
after  it  has  once  been  instituted  and  established,  not  by  miracu- 
lous attestation  at  every  fresh  appointment,  but  by  the  only 
other  method  by  which  an  office  can  be  perpetuated  when  in- 
trusted to  creatures  who  must  die ;  namely,  by  the  principle  of 
succession.     This  is  the  way  in  which  all  human  governments 


176  The  Church  Review. 

of  whatever  kind  are  continued  while  they  last  in  this  world.  I 
make  this  general  statement  now,  because  it  explains  at  once 
my  relation  to  my  fifty  brethren  around  me,  and  the  scores  out- 
side who  stand  on  the  same  ground  with  them,  in  refusing  the 
Episcopate  as  the  channel  through  which  official  authority  and 
power  pass.  The  moment  I  place  the  ministry  of  CHRIST  on 
this  basis, — namely,  of  official  relation,  —  no  rational  or  sane 
man  can  complain  that  he  is  slighted,  or  treated  with  disrespect, 
because  he  is  not  asked  to  perform,  or  to  attempt  to  perform,  the 
functions  of  office  to  which  he  can  lay  no  claim.  I  may  be  in 
error  as  regards  my  conviction  of  the  character  of  the  Christian 
ministry,  —  that  is  an  entirely  different  question,  and  my  brethren 
may  be  able  to  show  me  my  mistake ;  but  while  I  conscien- 
tiously believe  as  I  do,  I  cannot  be  justly  charged  with  presump- 
tion or  exclusiveness  or  narrowness  or  disrespect,  because  I 
do  not  invite  my  brethren  to  attempt  to  do  what  I  am  per- 
suaded they  have  no  right  to  do  if  they  could,  and  am  satisfied 
they  cannot  do  if  they  would. 

Would  any  one  feel  aggrieved  if  he  were  the  guest  of  the 
Governor  of  the  State,  and  was  not  asked  to  put  his  signature 
to  pardons,  or  Acts  of  the  Legislature?  Would  he  in  such  a 
case  consider  that  a  slight  was  put  upon  his  penmanship? 
Could  any  one  with  justice  cry  out,  "  Narrow,  bigoted,  exclu- 
sive !  "  if  he,  without  being  invested  with  the  office,  were  to  insist 
upon  discharging  the  duties  of  any  department  of  the  civil 
service  of  our  country,  and  in  consequence  was  not  allowed  to 
do  so?  Would  such  prohibition  raise  any  question  as  to  his 
social  standing,  his  learning,  his  excellence  in  character  and 
morals?  Could  anyone  in  reason  take  offence  at  the  Governor 
or  the  Mayor  or  any  other  official  person  neglecting,  or  declin- 
ing to  do  what  he  could  not  lawfully  do  ?  This  is  precisely  in  my 
judgment  our  relation  to  our  brethren  who  refuse  from  whatever 
cause  Episcopal  ordination.  The  Preface  to  our  Ordinal  for- 
mulates the  doctrine,  and  our  Canons  enjoin  the  practice. 

I  assure  our  brethren  that  this  refusal  to  permit  them  to 
minister  at  our  altars  and  officiate  in  our  Churches  is  with  me 
and  such  as  agree  with  me,  —  and  we  are  persuaded  that  whoever 
will  read  our  Ordinal  and  our  Canons  will  be  convinced  that  we 
represent  the  mind  of  the  Church,  —  this  refusal  is  no  question  of 
comity  or  good-breeding;  it  is  simply  a  question  of  priiiciple. 
It    cannot    possibly  be  construed,  if  the  Church's  position  be 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  177 

understood,  as  reflecting  in  any  way  upon  our  brethren,  save 
and  excepting  as  regards  their  lack  of  official  character.  We 
are  ready  to  concede  to  them  everything, —  intelligence,  learn- 
ing, culture,  piety,  good  works,  the  Christian  graces  ;  but  we  can- 
not allow,  as  we  read  God's  Word,  and  are  instructed  by  GoD'S 
Church,  —  we  cannot  allow  that  they  have  received  and  hold  the 
office  which  qualifies  them  to  represent  GoD,  act  in  GOD's 
stead.  In  this  conviction  we  may  be  mistaken ;  but  while  we 
remain  thus  convinced,  we  plead  that  our  Church  and  we  are 
guilty  of  no  incivility  in  not  compromising  our  principles  and 
stultifying  ourselves  before  GOD  and  our  fellow-men. 

Suppose  we  drop  from  this  position,  and  say,  as  some  do,  that 
Episcopacy  is  not  of  the  essence  of  the  ministry,  that  it  is  merely 
a  preferred  form  out  of  many,  and  that  all  are  good,  but  that 
this  is  the  best,  —  then  I  admit  on  this  assumption  that  our  non- 
Episcopal  brethren  can  make  good  their  charge  that  it  is  an 
impertinence  and  an  affront  for  us  to  decline  to  exchange  with 
their  ministers  on  terms*  of  perfect  equality.  For  those  who 
take  this  ground,  I  have  no  plea  to  make ;  their  attitude  toward 
our  brethren  without  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  most  offensive,  as  it 
makes  non-recognition  a  mere  caprice  of  human  legislation,  and 
rests  it  upon  no  principle  whatsoever.  Their  attitude  toward  their 
own  Communion  is  worse  than  offensive ;  it  is  insulting,  since  it 
virtually  proclaims  that  they  are  better  than  their  own  Church, 
of  which  by  voluntary  act  they  became  sworn  servants,  pledging 
themselves  by  solemn  vow  to  do  her  bidding  and  obey  her  laws. 
Let  us  hope  that  such  —  we  trust  that  they  are  very  few  —  are 
so  carried  away  by  the  desire  to  be  liberal  and  broad  and  popular 
that  they  become  blind  to  the  effect  of  their  own  conduct,  and 
can  no  longer  see  themselves  as  others  see  them.  I  entreat  our 
brethren  to  be  convinced  that  our  Ordinal  and  our  Canons  place 
the  matter  on  its  true  basis,  — that  of  principle,  —  and  that  we 
mean  no  more  offence  to  them  in  declining  to  ask  them  to  officiate 
in  our  Churches  than  the  President  of  the  United  States  does  in 
failing  to  ask,  or  if  requested  so  to  do,  in  refusing  to  allow  others 
to  share  with  him  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  executive 
mansion.  It  is  no  discourtesy;  it  is  no  incivility;  it  is  simply 
an  impossibility. 

In  reference  to  "  the  Historic  Episcopate,"  which  I  represent, 
it  is  my  duty,  as  it  is  my  pleasure,  to  say  to  my  fifty  or  one  hun- 
dred or  two  hundred  brethren,  representing  as  many  different 

12 


178  The  Church  Review.     ■ 

systems  of  doctrine  or  practice,  each  claiming  to  be  the  best,  as 
it  ought,  if  not  the  only  system  for  the  religious  training  of  man, 
—  it  is  my  duty  and  my  pleasure  to  say  to  them :  "  Gentlemen, 
brethren,  as  we  stand  here  before  the  world  the  busy  world, 
absorbed  in  the  present,  ignorant  of  the  past,  we  are  antece- 
dently, before  a  word  is  uttered  by  any  of  us  in  our  own  behalf, 
all  on  an  equality  No  one  of  us  can  claim  precedence  over  his 
companions  by  virtue  of  self-assertion,  which  will  be  for  one 
moment  listened  to  by  the  public.  Can  we  find  a  test,  then, 
which  will  be  alike  fair  to  all,  and  which  can  be  at  once  under- 
stood and  appreciated  by  all?  I  think  we  can.  Certainly,  if 
our  ecclesiastical  systems  are,  as  we  think,  the  ecclesiastical 
systems  established  by  Christ  and  vindicated  as  His  by  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  practice  of  His  Apostles,  then  they  ought  to 
have  clear,  distinct,  and  unmistakable  organic  connection  through 
the  ages  all  along  with  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  For  we  can- 
not conceive  that  our  Lord's  pledge  and  promise  would  fail ; 
and  we  have  His  express  word  that  *  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  His  Church.'  We  cannot  conceive  that  His  Church, 
organized  and  established  by  Himself,  would  soon  disappear, 
like  a  subterranean  stream,  and  remain  hidden  from  human  eye 
and  human  knowledge  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  then  reap- 
pear to  gladden  mankind  with  its  presence.  We  cannot  believe 
that  the  golden  chain  of  ministry,  sacrament,  and  practice,  forged 
and  constructed  by  the  Divine  hand,  was  attached  to  the  staple, 
Christ,  and  then,  after  a  few  links  were  added,  was  suddenly 
broken  off  and  dropped,  and  disappeared  to  sight  and  sense  for 
ages,  and  then  was  found,  or  was  claimed  to  be  found,  by  one 
and  another,  each  in  his  own  way,  and  on  the  responsibility  of 
his  own  unsupported  assertion.  We  cannot  believe  this,  and 
can  scarcely  comprehend  how  any  one  else  can  believe  it ;  hence 
I  propose  as  a  test  to  my  brethren  that  we  shall  all  in  the  sight 
of  the  great  public  embark  in  the  ship  '  History,'  and  sail 
away  from  the  present  moment  back  into  the  distant  past; 
that  our  haven  shall  be  the  Mount  of  the  Ascension,  and 
our  risen  LORD,  standing  there  in  our  glorified  humanity,  ready 
to  enter  heaven  and  occupy  the  throne  of  GOD ;  that  we  shall 
sail  thither,  if  we  can,  that  we  may  attach  what  we  each  severally 
claim  to  be  the  golden  chain  of  Christ's  Church  to  His  Divine 
Person,  and  vindicate  its  authenticity  and  unbroken  continuity 
in  the  sight  of  the  world,  since  all  can  watch  our  voyage,  as  we 


The  Historic  Episcopalc.  i  79 

recede  from  the  shore  and  pass  through  the  waves  of  )cars  and 
centuries  to  the  august  hour  when  the  great  Head  of  the  Church 
gave  His  charter  to  His  deputies,  to  act  under  Him  and  on  His 
behalf,  and  made  provision  for  the  continuance  of  their  office 
until  He  should  come  again  at  the  end  of  the  world.  Of  course, 
as  we  go  back,  and  come  to  the  date  when  our  respective  systems 
first  appear,  we  necessarily  leave  the  ship;  we  cannot  claim  to 
be  passengers  before  we  were  born."  If  this  test  be  accepted, 
and  I  cannot  see  why  it  is  not  perfectly  just,  then  we  must  all 
present  ourselves  upon  the  deck,  a  great  crowd,  in  the  sight  of 
those  now  living,  and  bid  them  good-by,  as  we  take  our  depart- 
ure, and  start  upon  our  voyage  into  the  past.  The  test  begins 
to  operate  forthwith,  and  thin  out  our  goodly  company.  It  is 
surprising  that  the  first  to  disappear  is  one  whom  we  would 
scarcely  have  expected  to  go  so  soon;  it  is  no  less  a  Com- 
munion than  the  Church  of  Rome.  She  is  the  latest  sect  of 
any  importance  among  the  divisions  of  Christendom.  She 
broke  away  from  her  own  past  and  Catholic  polity  in  the  year 
1870.  Then  by  formal  act  she  disowned  Christ's  charter, 
which  vests  the  government  of  His  Church  in  a  corporation, 
and  superseded  it  by  a  charter  of  human  invention,  her  own, 
which  converts  His  government  into  a  monarchy.  This  is  revo- 
lution, —  a  new^  departure  and  a  novel  invention.  It  changes  a 
branch  of  the  Catholic  Church  into  a  sect,  as  it  violates  and 
practically  repeals  the  fundamental  organic  law  of  that  Church, 
the  Body  of  CHRIST.  It  is  not  development  in  any  sense  of 
that  term;  it  is  revolution,  pure  and  simple.  I  am  well  aware 
that  the  pious  opinions,  as  they  were  called,  concerning  the  su- 
premacy and  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  had  grown  to  be  almost 
universal  in  the  Roman  Communion  prior  to  1 870,  but  they 
were  not  required  as  of  faith.  Then  at  that  date  these  pious 
opinions  were  formulated  into  dogmas,  added  to  an  already 
enlarged  Creed,  and  enjoined  upon  the  faithful  to  be  believed 
under  pain  of  excommunication.  From  that  moment  the  Church 
of  Rome,  I  claim,  broke  with  her  own  past,  and  with  the  polity 
of  the  co-ordinate  Apostolate,  continued  in  the  co-ordinate  Epis- 
copate as  established  by  our  Lord,  and  became  a  sect.  She  is 
therefore  the  first  to  leave  us.  In  succession  others  must  follow, 
sometimes  singly,  sometimes  in  companies  of  two  and  three,  until 
at  length  the  decks  are  deserted,  and  in  A.  D.  1 500,  those  who 
own  "  the  Historic  Episcopate  "  are  left  alone  upon  the  ship. 


i8o  The  Church  Review, 

We  reach,  as  I  firmly  believe,  our  haven,  the  Mount  of  the  As- 
censio^i,  and  our  object,  CHRIST.  In  our  presence,  —  that  is,  in 
the  presence  of  the  eleven  Apostles,  whom  we  succeed  and  rep- 
resent,—  we  hear  Him  proclaim  and  enjoin  His  charter,  as  of 
perpetual  obligation,  in  these  words  preserved  for  us  by  the 
Holy  Ghost:  "All  power  is  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth ;  go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  NAME  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world"  [S.  Matt,  xxviii.  18-20].  Here  we  have 
clearly  brought  out  into  bold  relief:  (a)  TJie  source  and  chan- 
nel of  the  power ;  namely,  from  the  Godhead  through  our  per- 
fected humanity  in  the  person  of  the  eternal  Son-.  (b)  The 
extent  of  the  power,  its  plenitude,  "  all  power  in  heaven  and 
in  earth."  (c)  The  form  of  government,  the  politeia,  under 
which  the  delegated  power  was  to  be  exercised,  —  a  corporation, 
not  a  monarchy;  eleven  men,  not  one;  all  the  Apostles,  not  S. 
Peter;  no  one  before  the  others,  but  all  abreast,  on  an  equality, 
in  co-ordination ;  they  are  addressed  throughout,  without  any 
distinction  or  difference,  in  the  plural  number,  (d)  The  extent 
of  tlie  jurisdiction  of  the  government,  thus  vested  in  a  corpora- 
ration,  as  to  space,  the  whole  earth,  *'  all  nations."  (e)  Its  dura- 
tion as  to  time,  **  always,  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (f)  The 
purposes  of  the  government,  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  Sacra- 
ments, teaching  in  its  widest  sense,  baptism,  and  "  the  breaking 
of  the  bread,"  for  this  was  one  of  the  things  which  jESUS  com- 
manded, (g)  TJie  limitations  under  which  these  delegated 
powers  of  government  were  to  be  exercised,  yzr^/,  in  depend- 
ence upon  the  Divine  Head,  —  "  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  Second,  in  mutual  dependence  upon 
each  other,  they  are  not  to  go  off  on  their  own  individual  lines, 
each  by  himself;  they  are  to  act  in  co-ordination.  They  received 
from  their  Divine  MdiStQV  jointly  ;  and  they  and  their  successors 
are  always  to  hold  and  exercise  and  hand  on  what  they  received 
jointly.  Third,  they  were  restrained  as  to  what  they  were  to 
teach  and  do.  They  must  keep  within  the  bounds  of  Christ's 
prescription,  "  teaching  them,"  He  says,  "  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.''  Not  what  they  pleased,  but 
what  He  willed ;  not  their  own  inventions,  but  His  commands, 
(h)  And  finally  this  corporation,  thus  created,,  was  official,  not 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  iSi 

personal  in  its  character,  since  our  P)lcssed  L(jrd  expressly 
pledges  Himself  that  He  will  shelter  it  with  His  presence  forever: 
*'  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

That  Christ  intended  an  office  to  be  understood  by  His 
words  is  clearly  shown  by  the  action  and  language  of  these  very 
Apostles  who  heard  Him  utter  them.  Within  ten  day*  after- 
ward they  fdled  the  vacancy  of  Judas  by  the  choice  of  S. 
Matthias;  and  in  doing  so,  they  contemplate  a  vacant  office  and 
quote  the  Blessed  Sl'IRIT,  speaking  by  the  prophet,  as  a  witness 
of  the  fact.  S.  Peter  says,  referring  to  Judas,  **  He  was  num- 
bered with  us,  and  had  obtained /'^^;Y  of  tJiis  ministry''  [Acts  i. 
17].  And  still  further,  as  the  reason  for  choosing  S.  Matthias: 
"  For  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  Let  his  habitation  be 
desolate,  and  let  no  man  dwell  therein;  and  his  bishoprick 
[margin, — office,  or  charge'\  let  another  take"  [Acts  i.  20]. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  co-ordinate  Apostolate,  the  highest  and 
as  yet  the  only  Order  in  the  Christian  ministry,  if  we  may  antici- 
pate the  use  of  the  phrase  before  the  Church  w^as  born,  waiting 
for  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  exercise  their  office,  as  soon  as  by 
Divine  permission,  in  the  reception  of  the  HOLV  SPIRIT,  "  the 
promise  of  the  Father,"  they  had  the  sign  from  above  that 
they  were  allowed  to  act.  The  Church  began  her  career  with 
the  highest  Order  of  the  ministry,  the  Apostles,  who  possessed 
all  tJie  powers  necessary  for  the  government  and  administration 
of  Christ's  flock.  After  a  time  there  came  development,  but 
it  was  downward,  not  upward.  This  statement  needs  to  be  re- 
peated, because  there  are  few  points  upon  which  there  has 
arisen  greater  misconception  than  there  has  upon  this.  We  are 
told  that  the  Church  started  out  with  parity  of  Orders,  and  that 
in  the  time  of  Tertullian  we  have  the  sjininins  saccrdos,  and 
a  little  later  the  Cyprianic  Bishop  ;  and  so  human  ambition  mani- 
fests itself  in  developing  the  ministry  upward  until  it  reaches 
prelacy.  Now  all  this,  except  the  original  parity  of  Orders,  is 
purely  imaginary ;  it  is  directly  contrary  to  the  recorded  facts. 
It  is  true  the  ministry,  as  CHRIST  left  the  earth,  and  as  the  day 
of  Pentecost  found  it,  was  in  one  Order,  but  it  was  the  highest, 
and  not  the  lozvest,  and  was  endowed  with  all  the  powers  neces- 
sary for  the  government  and  administration  of  the  Church  until 
the  return  of  the  Divine  Head  at  the  last  great  da}-.  There 
came  development  very  soon  under  the  direction  and  at  the 
hands  of  the  highest  Order,  the  Apostles.     It  was  a  develop- 


1 82  The  Chtirch  Review. 

ment  downward  in  the  Deacon  and  the  Elder  or  Presbyter  or 
Bishop.  These  three  Orders  complete  the  Christian  ministry  in 
its  fully  developed  form,  and  as  such,  I  believe,  it  was  intended 
to  represent,  and  does  represent,  CHRIST  officially, —  CHRIST  in 
His  tJirce  offices  of  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King. 

Eqifally  fallacious  is  the  theory  that  at  first  we  have  parochial 
Episcopacy,  or  parity  of  Orders,  or  Presbyterian  Church  govern- 
ment, and  then  without  the  survival  of  any  protest,  w^e  have  this 
alleged  original  primitive  Divine  system  supplanted  by  Diocesan 
Episcopacy ;  and  then  this  passes  by  the  law  of  development 
into  Popery.  I  must  demur  to  this  sketch  of  a  supposed  transi- 
tion upward  from  parity  to  Popery  by  remarking  that  it  is 
contrary  to  God's  Word,  that  it  makes  Presbyterianism  respon- 
sible not  only  for  prelacy,  but  also  for  Popery,  since  it  will  be 
observed  that  Episcopacy  is  simply  a  stage  of  transition  through 
which  the  seeds  of  error  and  abuse  inherent  in  Presbyterianism 
pass  in  their  growth  to  their  flower  and  fruit  in  Romanism. 
Now  I  am  willing  to  allow  that  the  system  of  John  Calvin  is 
responsible  for  a  great  deal  which  had  far  better  never  have 
been ;  but  I  must  insist  that  it  is  innocent  of  this  alleged  offence. 
The  parity  of  Orders  provided  by  Christ  for  His  Church  before 
she  was  born,  protects  her  by  Divine  metes  and  bounds  against 
this  process  of  centralization  reaching  its  culmination  in  placing 
all  authority  and  power  in  one.  Christ  reserves  that  place 
and  that  dignity  for  Himself  alone.  He  blocks  the  way  against 
such  an  impious  and  sacrilegious  invasion  of  the  prerogatives  of 
His  throne  on  high  by  interposing  His  Apostolate,  —  a  corpora- 
tion of  eleven  men,  passing  officially  into  the  Historic  Episcopate 
as  the  nearest  permitted  approach  to  Him  on  earth  and  in  time 
in  His  offices.  The  Apostolate,  and  its  official  equivalent,  the 
Episcopate,  is  the  great  invincible  foe  of  Rome.  She  has  no 
place  in  her  present  polity  for  either,  save  as  a  name,  the 
shadow  of  a  reality,  which  she  has  expelled  from  her  system. 

The  demand  is  often  made  by  our  brethren  to  show  them 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  in  the  New  Testament.  This  demand,  I 
am  confident,  is  urged  without  reflection.  Diocesan  Episcopacy 
presents  for  our  contemplation  an  essential  thing,  with  its  acci- 
dents. The  office,  Episcopacy,  is  the  essential  tiling ;  Diocesan 
embraces  the  accidents.  I  am  not  contending  for  the  accidents, 
but  for  the  essential  thing.  The  Church  was  not  born  on  the 
day   of  Pentecost   clad   with    her   beautiful    garments,   with    a 


The  His  lor  ic  Episcopate.  iS 


numerous  laity  read)'  for  orf^^anizaticMi,  with  huiklin^s  [)rcparcd 
for  occupancy,  and  all  the  instruments  of  public  worship  wait- 
ing to  be  used.  All  that  she  possessed  in  the  way  of  equip- 
ment for  work  by  direct  Divine  appointment  and  gift  were  the 
old  economy,  soon  to  vanish  away,  as  a  witness,  in  spite  of  the 
Jews,  of  the  truth  of  the  new  economy  of  CHRIST,  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  testifying  of  jESUS  and  Mis  l^ody  the 
Church,  and  the  Apostolate,  Plis  deputies,  viceroys  represent- 
ing Him  to  the  fullest  extent  that  He  vouchsafed  to  be  repre- 
sented on  earth  and  in  time,  and  whose  seed  was  in  itself  to 
perpetuate  itself  and  develop  itself  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  inferior  Orders  of  Presbyter  and  Deacon. 
This  was  what  was  supplied  to  the  Church  at  her  birth  for  the 
work  which  she  was  given  to  do.  It  was  the  business  of  her 
duly  accredited  Apostolate  and  the  ministries  which  they 
called  into  being  to  create  a  laity  by  preaching  and  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Sacraments,  to  govern  them  and  organize 
them  ultimately  into  a  normal  ecclesiastical  system,  to  provide 
a  statement  of  doctrine  as  a  security  against  fundamental  error, 
and  to  complete  or  superintend  the  completion  of  the  records 
of  revelation  in  the  addition  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old. 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  came  afterward,  or  if  it  began  to  exist  in 
the  Apostles'  time,  it  was  in  exceptional  cases,  where  the  circum- 
stances were  favorable  for  a  settled  order  of  things,  as  in  Jerusa- 
lem and  Ephesus.  The  Apostles  were  never  Diocesan  Bishops 
in  our  modern  sense  of  the  term.  Their  jurisdiction  and  work 
bring  them  more  nearly  to  our  pioneer  missionary  Bishops, 
such  as  Selwyn  in  New  Zealand,  and  the  heroic  men  who  are 
taking  in  charge  at  the  present  time  vast  tracts  of  savage  Africa. 
The  Apostles,  it  is  often  said,  can  have  no  successors,  and  hence 
Bishops  cannot  inherit  from  them.  In  their  personal  relations 
to  our  Lord  as  chosen  by  Him,  as  living  with  Him  during  His 
ministry,  as  witnesses  of  His  death  and  resurrection,  this  is 
perfectly  true  ;  and  no  one,  except  possibly  the  Irvingites,  would 
be,  so  far  as  I  know,  disposed  to  deny  it.  But  aside  from  their 
personal  relation  to  our  Lord,  the  Apostles  were  invested  by 
Him  with  an  office;  and  this  office  He  tells  us  with  the  last 
words  which  He  uttered  on  earth  He  saw  passing  down  the 
ages,  and  so  seeing  it.  He  promised  to  be  with  it  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  In  reference  to  this  office  our  contention  is  that 
the    Apostles    have    successors.      George    Washington    in    his 


184  The  Church  Review. 

personal  relation  to  these  United  States,  as  the  Commander-in- 
chief  of  the  army  during  our  Revolutionary  struggle,  who  under 
God  brought  the  war  to  a  successful  termination, —  George 
Washington,  **  the  Father  of  his  Country,"  can  have  no  succes- 
sors ;  but  George  Washington  in  his  official  relation  to  this  Re- 
public, thank  GOD,  has  successors.  He  was  not  only  the  Father 
of  his  Country,  but  he  was  also  the  President  of  the  United 
States.     It  is  the  office  which  passes,  not  the  personality. 

But  I  hear  the  murmur,  *'  The  name  '  episcopos,'  bishop,  was 
in  the  New  Testament  applied  to  the  second  Order,  who  served  un- 
der the  Apostles,  and  were  also  called  Elders,  Presbyters ;  "  and 
hence  I  am  told,  "The  nomenclature  of  the  New  Testament  is 
against  you,  and  the  allegation  for  which  you  stand,  —  that  the 
Historic  Episcopate  carries  on  the  Apostolic  office,  and  brings 
it  down  to  us."  My  contention  is  not  about  words,  but  about 
things.  I  freely  admit  that  the  name  *'  episcopos  "  was  used  at 
first  to  describe  an  Elder.  But  am  I  to  tell  my  brethren,  as  an  un- 
heard-of thing,  that  in  the  course  of  time  words  have  been  known 
to  change  their  meaning  and  their  applications?  That  ''par- 
ish," for  example,  and  ''  dioeese  "  in  ecclesiastical  language  mean 
very  different  things  to  our  ears  from  what  they  did  to  S.  Basil. 
What  I  maintain  is  that  the  Divine  records  plainly  show  us  that 
the  Apostles  had  co-laborers  working  with  them  in  the  same 
office,  and  that  under  them  and  their  colleagues  there  were, 
besides,  two  distinct  Orders  of  Divine  appointment  as  created  by 
them,  who  acted  by  direction  of  the  HOLY  Ghost  ;  and  that 
then  writers  who  were  contemporaries  with  the  Apostles  supple- 
ment the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  by  showing  us  that  univer- 
sally the  Church  in  their  day  put  the  practical  interpretation  upon 
God's  Word  that  its  meaning  was  that  the  sacred  ministry  was 
constituted  in  three  Orders,  —  those,  namely,  of  Bishop,  Pres- 
byter, and  Deacon,  —  and  that  the  ministry  was  continued  by 
succession  at  the  hands  of  ih^  first  or  highest  Order. 

This  gives  me  a  living  Church,  bound  together  in  time  as  one 
by  a  network  of  innumerable  strands,  crossing  and  recrossing 
one  another  until  thought  is  confused  in  contemplating  the  great- 
ness of  the  security  which  Apostolic  and  Nicene  Canons  give 
us  to  guard  the  continuity  of  Holy  Orders.  The  succession  is 
not  the  succession  of  links  in  a  chain,  to  be  counted  one  by 
one,  nor  as  our  lineal  descent  to  be  reckoned  back  by  a  mul- 
tiple of  two,  but  beyond  this,  the  succession  brings  in  at  each 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  1S5 

remove  an  increase  multiplied  by  three,  l^ut  then  there  comes 
the  cry,  "  Tactual  succession  !  "  It  is  not  a  murmur  ;  it  is  a  deri- 
sive cry,  "Tactual  succession,  can  that  convey  grace?"  I 
answer  yes,  if  God  so  wills;  and  I  am  fully  convinced  that  He 
does  so  will,  because  He  rules  the  New  Dispensation,  our  Chris- 
tian system,  by  the  law  of  the  l/icarnation,  —  the  law,  namjly, 
that  God  in  the  person  of  His  T^ternal  Son  comes  to  us  through 
the  agency  of  matter,  —  and  hence  I  would  anticipate,  as  I  find 
verified  in  the  event,  that  all  subordinate  blessings,  so  far  as  I 
know,  in  His  Kingdom,  and  all  other  blessings,  are  subordinate 
to  the  gift  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  conveyed  to  me  through  the 
instnimentality  of  matter.  Indeed,  I  will  venture  to  ask  my 
friends  who  seem  to  be  so  shocked  at  the  idea  of  tactual  suc- 
cession conveying  spiritual  gifts,  —  I  will  ask  them  to  name  to  me 
a  single  blessing  which  they  have  ever  possessed  in  the  spheres 
of  body,  mind,  or  spirit,  which  has  been  bestowed  upon  them 
without  the  intervention  of  matter.  I  frankly  state  that,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  I  know  of  none.  The  Historic  Episcopate,  I 
am  told,  includes  in  its  roll  of  countless  names  many  bad  men, 
and  the  Church  which  they  represent  has  been  at  times  and 
for  long  periods  depraved  and  vile.  Alas  !  the  charge  is  only 
too  sadly  true.  But  what  is  that  supposed  to  prove?  Surely 
not  that  the  wicked  rulers  and  bad  people  destroy  GOD'S 
Church ;  if  so,  then  under  the  old  covenant  God's  Church  must 
have  come  to  nought  many  times;  but  not  so,  it  survived  the 
profanity  of  Aaron's  and  Eli's  sons,  the  degeneracy  of  the  days 
of  Elijah,  and  the  awful  impiety  of  the  epoch  of  the  captivity. 
Such  reasoning  is  fallacious  and  misleading,  and  must  not  be 
listened  to  for  one  moment.  The  Prophets  refute  it,  and  our 
Blessed  LORD  settles  the  matter,  when  He  draws  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  office  and  the  persons  who  hold  it,  and 
demands  respect  and  obedience  for  the  one,  and  solemnly  warns 
against  the  other.  Addressing  the  multitude  and  His  disciples, 
Jesus  says,  "The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat; 
all  therefore  whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and 
do ;  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works :  for  they  say  and  do  not  " 
[S.  Matt,  xxiii.  2,3].  Elsewhere  He  draws  the  character  of  these 
same  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the  darkest  colors,  and  denounces 
them  with  the  severest  maledictions.  The  same  observation 
applies  to  all  that  the  Church  hands  on  and  down  to  us.  —  the 
imperfections,  nay,  the  monstrous  sins  of  individual  members,  or 


1 86  The  CImrch  Review, 

even  of  large  portions  of  the  flock,  do  not  necessarily  vitiate 
and  destroy  the  heritage  thus  transmitted.  The  Nicene  Creed 
is  not  in  the  least  degre^  affected  by  the  disgraceful  character 
and  conduct  of  some  members  of  the  Council  of  Nice  and  the 
corruption  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  not  without  its  purpose 
for  persons  who  insist  that  the  channel  through  which  Divine 
gifts  come  to  us  must  be  as  pure  as  the  gifts  themselves,  to 
study  the  genealogy  of  our  Blessed  Lord  as  presented  by  S. 
Matthew,  and  find,  as  they  will,  that  "  Judas  begat  Phares  and 
Zara  of  Thamar,"  and  farther  on,  that  "  Salmon  begat  Booz  of 
Rachab."  It  would  not  be  unprofitable  for  such  persons  to 
reflect  that  their  logic,  if  they  are  consistent,  will  compel  them 
to  affix  their  signatures  to  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary. 

While  speaking  of  the  Creeds,  another  matter  presses  :  I  find 
that  some  of  my  brethren  object  to  the  Apostles'  Creed,  first, 
on  the  ground  that  in  its  present  form  it  is  of  later  date  than 
the  Apostles ;  second,  that  it  is  an  imperfect  or  incomplete  state- 
ment of  Divine  truth;  and  third,  that  it  contains  the  article, 
'•  He  descended  into  hell,"  which  some  of  them  tell  us  they 
do  not  believe,  because  when  our  LORD  went  to  hell,  or  hades, 
He  went  ///,  not  down.  To  remove  these  difficulties,  if  pos- 
sible, let  me  suggest  that  the  Divine  records  prove  that  the 
Apostles  at  the  very  outset  must  have  formulated  their  teaching 
into  some  condensed  form  which  could  be  easily  recited  and 
retained  in  memory,  since  we  learn  [Acts  ii.  42]  that  the 
believers  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  *'  continued  in  the 
Apostles '  doctrine."  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  Apostles' 
Creed  as  we  have  it  now  is  precisely  in  so  many  words  the 
same  form  which  the  Apostles  prepared  and  taught  to  their  con- 
verts ;  but  it  is  substantially  the  same,  and  their  name  is  very 
properly  giv^en  to  the  Creed,  because  it  represents  the  essentials 
of  their  teaching.  This  practice  is  so  common  that  it  scarcely 
needs  illustration  ;  **  Ciceronian  Latin,"  *'  the  Athanasian  Creed," 
"  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  "  will  serve  as  examples  in  as  many  dif- 
ferent spheres  of  human  affairs,  —  literature,  religion,  and  politics. 

That  the  Apostles'  Creed  is  incomplete  as  a  protection  against 
heresy  is  shown  by  the  presence  of  the  Nicene,  and  in  some 
branches  of  the  Church  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  These  to- 
gether formulate  the  doctrine  relative  to  the  Blessed  Trinity, 
the  person  and  natures  of  CHRIsr,  the  Divinity  and  personality 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  187 

of  the  Holy  SriRir,  the  Church  and  her  notes,  and  tlie  necessary 
things  which  the  Incarnation  secures  for  mankind,  —  the  for^iv^e- 
ness  of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  hfe  everlast- 
ing. The  purpose  of  the  Creeds  was  to  keep  the  essentials  of 
the  Faith  ever  present  in  the  memories  and  ever  fresh  upon  the 
lips  of  believers;  and  hence  they  were  incorporated  into  the 
offices  of  Matins  and  Evensong  and  into  the  Divine  Liturgy. 
They  were  made  a  part  of  public  worship.  Their  recitation 
aloud  secured  that  confession  with  the  mouth  which  GoD  ex- 
pects, nay,  demands  from  those  who  believe  with  the  heart. 
The  Creeds  are  incomplete,  as  setting  forth  schemes  of  theology, 
or  as  some  would  express  it,  bodies  of  divinity.  They  were 
never  designed  to  do  this ;  but  as  it  is,  they  teach  vastly  more 
than  the  superficial  Christian  imagines,  and  they  imply  vastly 
more  than  they  teach. 

The  illustration  of  this  last  remark  brings  me  to  what  some  of 
our  friends  very  seriously  and  earnestly  object  to ;  the  article, 
namely,  "  He  descended  into  hell."  A  very  distinguished  mem- 
ber of  the  company  whom  I  am  primarily  addressing,  uses  this 
to  me  most  astounding  language:  **  I  deem  the  Apostles'  Creed 
wrong  in  saying  that  our  LORD  descended  into  hell,  or  hades. 
He  went  to  Paradise ;  and  when  Paul  went  to  Paradise,  he  was 
caught  up.  I  believe  that  article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed  was  de- 
rived from  a  false  interpretation  of  I  S.  Peter  iii.  19  in  the  third 
century."  The  words  under  consideration  —  '*  He  descended 
into  hell" —  undoubtedly  do  not  appear  in  the  earlier  forms  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  it  may  be  that  the  passage  from  S.  Peter 
may  have  been  employed  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  fact  alleged ; 
but  their  introduction  came  from  a  natural  expansion  of  the 
article,  "  He  was  buried,"  —  for  the  burial  of  a  man  means  more 
than  the  burial  of  a  brute ;  it  includes  in  the  thought  of  a  Chris- 
tian the  return  of  the  body  to  the  dust  and  of  the  spirit  to  the 
God  who  gave  it.  This  was  true  of  our  Lord,  as  S.  Peter  ex- 
pressly tells  us  in  the  first  Christian  sermon  which  he  preached 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  [Acts  ii.  31].  He  quotes  from  the  Six- 
teenth Psalm,  and  makes  the  following  comment :  David,  he  says, 
"  being  a  prophet  and  knowing  that  GOD  had  sworn  with  an 
oath  to  him  that  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh. 
He  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne;  He  seeing  this 
before  spake  of  the  resurrection  of  CHRIST,  that  His  soul  was 
not  left   in   hell,  neither  His  flesh   did   see  corruption."     Here 


1 88  The  Church  Review. 

S.  Peter  expressly  distinguishes  between  the  flesh  and  the  soul 
of  our  Blessed  Lord  ;  and  he  rests  his  distinction  upon  the 
authority  of  the  HoLY  Ghost,  and  upon  the  same  author- 
ity he  affirms  that  our  Blessed  Lord's  soul  went  to  hell,  or 
hades,  but  was  not  left  there,  but  returned  to  His  body,  and  He 
rose  from  the  dead.  The  article,  therefore,  '*  He  descended  in- 
to hell,"  is  inevitably  implied  in  its  predecessor,  "  He  was 
buried,"  because  the  Creed  is  speaking  of  the  man  CHRIST 
Jesus.  It  was  drawn  out  and  added,  doubtless  to  refute  a 
heresy  which  was  spreading,  which  denied  that  our  LORD  had 
a  reasonable  soul,  alleging  that  the  Divine  Personality  supplied 
the  place  of  the  human  souL  To  withdraw  the  article,  "  He  de- 
scended into  hell,"  therefore,  from  the  Apostles'  Creed  now  is  to 
obscure,  if  it  be  not  to  deny  the  perfect  humanity  of-CHRlST. 
As  to  the  expressions,  ''  He  descended,  or  ascended,"  they  are, 
we  all  know,  accommodations  to  our  present  condition,  and  not 
absolute  terms.  S.  Paul  [Eph.  iv  9,  10],  speaking  of  Christ, 
says,  "  Now  that  He  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  He  also  de- 
scended first  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth?  He  that 
descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended  up  far  above  all 
heavens,  that  He  might  fill  all  things."  Such  language  then  is 
used  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  let  the  interpretation 
of  "  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  "  be  what  it  may,  the  Incarnation, 
the  burial,  or  the  descent  into  hell,  or  hades,  it  serves  my  pur- 
pose just  as  well,  since  we  learn  from  them  that  our  LORD  did 
descend  ;  and  after  He  was  risen  from  the  dead  we  learn  on  His 
own  authority  that  He  had  not  yet  gone  up,  for  He  says  to  Mary 
Magdalene  on  the  morning  of  His  resurrection  [S.  John  xx.  17]  : 
"  Touch  me  not;  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  FATHER :  but 
go  to  my  brethren,  and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend  unto  my  FATHER 
and  your  Father,  and  to  my  GoD  and  your  GOD."  My  very 
learned  friend  had  not  his  Greek  Testament  at  hand  when  he 
in  an  incautious  moment  built  an  argument,  or  rather  rested  his 
rejection  of  the  article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  *'  He  descended 
into  hell,  or  hades,"  upon  the  statement  of  S.  Paul  that  he 
was  caught  ///  into  Paradise  as  it  appears  in  our  English  Version. 
S.  Paul  does  not  say  that  he  was  caught  ?///  the  '*  up  "  is  an  in- 
terpretation of  our  translators.  S.  Paul  says  simply  that  he  was 
caught,  snatched  into  Paradise. 

One  w^ord   about   the  Nicene  Creed.     It  is  objected   that   it 
enters  into  philosophical  speculation,  and  that  we  should  be  con- 


The  Historic  Episcopate.  189 

tent  with  the  Serii)ture  statement  that  "  the  Word  is  God." 
The  primitive  Chureli  was  content  with  Scripture  statements  to 
embody  the  truth,  but  ahis  !  man  finds  out  many  inventions 
He  invented  a  subtle  philosophy  to  deprave  and  destroy  the 
truth;  and  this  [)hilosopliy  assailed  the  truth  of  truths  in  the 
plan  of  human  redemption,  the  corner-stone  of  the  Cath<jlic 
Faith,  the  Divinity  of  Jksus  ClIRIST.  No  Scripture  phrase 
could  be  found  which  the  champions  of  that  heresy  would  not 
accept  and  evade.  They  must  be  met  and  vanquished  on  their 
own  ground  ;  and  the  single  word,  "  Jioviooiisiou^'  was  the  weapon 
whose  thrust  they  could  not  parry;  it  proved  to  be  a  barrier 
which  they  could  not  pass.  There  is  here  no  more  philosophy 
than  is  needed  to  shut  out  the  most  destructive  heresy  which 
ever  invaded  the  fold  of  CHRIST. 

Surely  there  is  not  so  much  philosophy  involved  in  the  argu- 
ment of  the  homoousion  that  this  age  and  my  learned  brethren 
need  fear  that  they  or  their  people  will  be  bewildered  in  its 
mazes.  This  word  simply  asserts  of  the  Son  that  He  is  of  the 
same  essence  or  substance  with  the  FATHER ;  and  as  the  attri- 
butes of  any  essence  or  substance  must  go  with  that  essence  or 
substance  wherever  it  is  found,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  if  the 
Son  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  FATHER,  He  must  have 
the  attributes  of  the  FATHER.  One  of  these  attributes  is  eternal. 
The  Father  is  eternal ;  hence  the  SON  must  be  eternal.  This  was 
the  point  in  dispute.  The  Arian  denied  the  eternity  of  Christ's 
being;  and  this  denial  carried  with  it  everything,  —  the  Trinity, 
the  atonement,  the  merits  of  our  Lord's  death.  It  left  man  where 
the  Fall  left  him,  stripped,  naked,  wounded,  cast  down,  defence- 
less, helpless.  Homoousion  shut  out  this  heresy  and  barred  the 
way  forever  against  its  return.  Is  there  too  much  philosoph)'  in 
this?  Not  for  me.  Thank  GOD  for  the  Nicene  Creed  !  Thank 
God  for  the  Catholic  Church,  which  with  her  living  voice  has 
rung  out  this  Creed  from  age  to  age  to  guard  our  heritage  of 
redemption  through  a  Saviour,  who  is  CHRIST  our  GoD  !  Thank 
God  for  the  Historic  Episcopate,  the  spinal  cord  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  carries  down  from  the  Divine  Head  — CHRIST  our 
Lord,  God  over  all  in  heaven  —  the  gifts  of  the  HOLY  Ghost, 
and  diffuses  them  through  orders  and  sacraments  and  services, 
as  nervous  vitality  permeates  the  body  and  fills  it  with  life  from 
the  crown  of  the  head  to  the  sole  of  the  foot !  Thank  GOD  for 
the  Historic  Episcopate,  which  guards,  as  it  has  guarded,  the 


I  go  The  Church  Review. 

sacred  deposit  which  Christ  committed  to  His  Apostolate  on 
the  Mount  of  the  Ascension,  with  the  charge  that  they  should 
keep  it  even  to  the  end  !  The  treasures  are  not  for  ourselves 
alone ;  they  are  a  sacred  trust  for  mankind.  We  hold  them  to 
guard  them,  not  as  hoarding  them,  but  that  we  may  have  them 
in  possession  to  share  with  our  brethren  if  they  will  receive 
them  at  our  hands.  With  joy  unspeakable  will  we  welcome 
them  to  our  Father's  house,  and  give  them  freely  and  fully  the 
best  that  is  in  that  house ;  but  v/e  may  not  unroof  the  house  and 
tear  up  its  foundations  that  we  may  enjoy  their  society.  If  Holy 
Orders  and  Sacraments  and  Creed  and  Liturgy  be  gifts  which 
come  from  the  LORD,  we  may  not,  must  not,  compromise  them 
or  throw  them  away,  since  then  we  shall  be  faithless,  disloyal 
stewards,  and  so  far  as  we  could  do  so  will  banish  these  gifts 
from  the  face  of  the  earth  and  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  our 
brethren  afterward,  however  much  they  may  covet  them,  to 
obtain  them. 

My  time  is  up,  and  I  must  stop  and  leave  so  many  things  un- 
said which  I  fain  would  say  that  I  feel  as  though  I  must  go  on ; 
but  necessity  constrains,  and  I  forbear  with  a  parting  word  to 
my  friends.  Some  of  them  have  intimated,  and  others  more 
plainly  said,  that  if  the  cause  of  Christian  unity  requires  them 
to  surrender  their  position  or  take  a  step  which  reflects  upon 
their  ancestry  in  their  specific  belief  and  practice,  and  especially, 
where  they  have  such,  the  great  founders  of  their  systems  or 
Churches,  they  will  not  entertain  the  idea  for  one  moment.  Let 
me  ask  any  man  who  values  his  reputation  for  fidelity  to  truth 
and  principle  whether  in  the  sight  of  GOD  and  as  responsible  to 
his  own  conscience  he  dare  occupy  such  a  position.  On  these 
terms  error  would  never  be  abandoned,  truth  would  never  be 
embraced.  On  these  terms  the  heathen  would  never  have  for- 
saken their  idols  and  become  Christians;  on  these  terms  the 
Reformers  would  never  have  left  what  they  believed  to  be  the 
corruptions  and  abuses  of  their  own  age  and  country  and  gone 
forth  on  new  lines  and  become  the  great  leaders  whom  our 
friends  delight  to  follow,  and  whose  persons  they  hold  in  most 
sincere  admiration.  Let  me  point  my  brethren  to  these  Re- 
formers as  examples  in  this  respect  of  our  duty.  At  all  events, 
they  shall  be  mine.  For  me,  nothing  must  count  in  preference 
to  truth. 

George  F.  Seymour. 


Cl)e  !^Dlr  ^criptirrcs?  ass  tl)c  I5a&i&  of 

Rev.  William  D.  Wilson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  L.H.D.,  Dean  r)i- 
S.  Andrew's  Divinity  School. 

A  S  I  am  to  write  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Tmsis  of 
±\  Church  Unity,  it  would  seem  proper  to  preface  what  I 
have  to  say  by  a  brief  consideration  of  the  problems  and 
difficulties  to  be  met,  bearing  always  in  mind  the  existing 
evils  and  the  end  to  be  accomplished. 

Leaving  out  of  account  for  the  present  the  Oriental  Church, 
including  as  it  does  nearly  one  third  of  the  professing  Christians 
of  the  world,  we  have  around  us  three  distinct  bodies  or  classes 
of  persons  to  be  considered. 

1.  We  have  those  who  adhere  to  and  advocate  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  essential  to  Church  Unity ;  they 
hold  that  our  Lord  made  S.  Peter  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles, 
and  gave  him  not  only  presidency,  but  authority  also  over  the 
others,  and  through  them,  over  the  whole  Church  of  believers 
in  Him  ;  that  S.  Peter  became  Bishop  of  Rome  and  transmitted 
to  his  successors  through  all  time  the  presidency  and  the  su- 
premacy which  he  had  exercised.  And  recently  his  adherents 
have  declared  that  he  is  infallible  whenever  he  speaks  au- 
thoritatively and  in  his  official  capacity;  so  that  no  one  can 
have  any  reasonable  hope  of  final  salvation  who  does  not 
accept  and  follow  his  decrees. 

2.  Then  we  have  what  are  called  ultra-Protestants,  who  hold 
that  when  our  Lord  spoke  of  building  His  Church  [Matt.  xvi. 
1 8]  He  did  not  refer  to  any  visible  organized  body  of  those  that 
should  believe  in  Him,  but  rather  to  an  invisible  number,  known 
only  to  Himself;  that  He  caused  His  Gospel  to  be  preached, 
and  finally  to  be  committed  to  writing,  leaving  the  believers  to 
organize  themselves  into  Churches,  as  many  and  as  various  in 
form  and  discipline  as  they  might  think  most  expedient  and 
conducive  to  the  welfare  and  final  salvation  of  men.  They  do 
not  regard  "  the  Historic  Episcopate  "  or  any  other  form  of  a 


192  The  Church  Review, 

ministry  that  has  any  visible  or  tactual  connection  with  the 
Apostles,  or  the  ministry  our  LORD  ordained  and  sent  to  preach 
His  Gospel,  as  at  all  necessary. 

3.  Then  in  the  third  place  we  have  a  class  of  Christians  who 
claim  to  have  "  the  Historic  Episcopate  "  with  an  actual  and  a 
tactual  line  of  descent  from  the  Apostles.  They  hold  that  the 
Church  spoken  of  by  our  LORD  [Matt.  xvi.  18;  xviii.  17]  and 
often  referred  to  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  [Acts  iii.  47;  i  Tim, 
iii.  15]  was  a  visible  and  organized  body. 

In  fact,  this  view  is  inevitably  implied,  if  indeed  it  is  not  ex- 
pressly stated  in  the  Declaration  of  our  House  of  Bishops 
{General  Convention,  1886,  p.  80]  :  "  We  do  hereby  affirm  that 
the  Christian  Unity  now  so  earnestly  desired  .  .  .  can  be 
restored  only  by  a  return  of  all  Christian  Communions  to  the 
principles  of  unity  exemplified  by  the  undivided  Catholic 
Church  during  the  first  ages  of  its  existence ;  which  principles 
we  believe  to  be  the  substantial  deposit  of  Christian  Faith 
and  Order  committed  by  CllRlST  and  His  Apostles  to  the 
Church  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  and  therefore  incapable 
of  compromise  or  surrender  by  those  who  have  been  ordained 
to  be  its  stewards  and  trustees  for  the  common  and  equal 
benefit  of  all  men." 

But  the  views  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  entertained  by  them 
(which  is  the  subject  now  more  especially  before  us)  differ 
quite  as  much  among  these  bodies  or  classes  of  Christians 
we  have  named,  as  they  themselves  do  in  regard  to  the 
Church  which  our  LORD  founded.  And  in  fact  this  diversity 
of  views  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures  is,  if  not  fundamental, 
yet  essential  to  the  diversity  of  their  views  in  regard  to  the 
Church  itself 

The  advocates  of  the  Papal  claims  hold  that  besides  what  is 
contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  there  are  traditions  outside 
of  their  teachings,  and  especially  such  as  have  received  the 
approval  and  sanction  of  the  Pope,  that  are  as  essential  and 
as  necessary  to  salvation  as  the  things  that  are  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  themselves. 

Then  the  extreme  Protestants  hold  on  the  other  hand  that 
the  Bible  alone  is  the  guide  for  Christian  believers,  —  that  each 
one  is  to  take  it,  study  it,  and  interpret  it  for  himself  as  best 
he  can,  under  the  influence  of  prayer  and  the  guidance  of 
the    Holy    Ghost.  ■   They    scarcely    hold    to    any   "  Church 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Cluirch  Cni/y.     193 

authority"  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  They  do  indeed 
hold  to  and  see  the  necessity  of  Church  re^^ulations,  sucli  as 
each  pastor  or  coni^re^ation  may  make  as  a  matter  of  expe- 
diency and  as  conducive  to  edification. 

I'hen  finally  we  have  those  holdinc,^  a  somewliat  middle 
ground,  —  like  that  of  the  Protestant  l^piscopalians,  who,  as 
it  will  be  remembered,  proposed  the  four  conditions  of  union, 
one  of  which  we  are  considering.  They  hold  and  expressly  de- 
clare (Art.  VI.)  that  "  the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  things 
necessary  to  salvation."  But  they  also  hold  that  there  are 
many  things  spoken  of  or  alluded  to  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
which  are  essential,  in  some  one  form  or  another,  to  any 
Church  organization,  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  to 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  which  are  not  expressly 
stated  in  the  Scriptures.  And  they  hold  that  the  safest  and 
most  proper  guide  to  a  right  understanding  and  observance 
of  these  things  is  what  may  be  called  tradition  ;  that  is,  the 
records  that  have  come  down  to  us  outside  of  the  Scriptures, 
—  such  as  notes  of  usages,  canons,  and  opinions  of  early 
Fathers. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
we  find  that  although,  as  it  now  appears,  there  may  have 
been  portions  of  the  earlier  books  in  existence  before  the 
time  of  Moses,  yet  that  the  books,  from  first  to  last,  from 
Genesis  to  Malachi,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  book 
of  Job,  were  written  in  the  Jewish  Church,  by  members  of 
the  Church,  and  after  its  organization  by  Moses  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  after  the  priests  and  Levites  had  been  set  apart 
not  only  for  the  administration  of  the  w^orshlp  In  the  Taber- 
nacle, but  also  to  be  the  Instructors  and  guides  of  the  people 
in  matters  that  pertain  to  their  Faith  and  religion  as  well 
as  in  regard  to  their  duties  as  men  and  citizens ;  and  that  all 
these  books,  with,  as  before  said,  the  possible  exception  of 
Job,  were  written  for  their  instruction  and  guidance  in  their 
responsible  and  arduous  duties  as  priests  and  ministers. 

If  now  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, we  find  very  much  the  sam.e  result.  We  find  that 
our  Lord  declared,  some  time  before  He  died,  His  Intention 
to  build  His  Church  on  the  confession  of  His  Divine  Nature 
which  S.  Peter  had  just  made.  He  soon  after,  as  it  appears 
from    S.  Matthew's    record,  gave    to    Hjs    Apostles    extensive 

13 


194  The  Church  Review, 

power,  not  only  of  legislation,  but  of  discipline  as  well, 
subordinate  of  course  to  any  instruction  He  had  given  them 
or  might  thereafter  give  them  [Matt.  xvi.  and  xviii.  15-21]. 
Then  in  Acts  [ii.  47]  we  find  the  Church  spoken  of  as  already 
existing  and  established,  so  that  **  the  LORD  added  to  the 
Church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved,"  —  or  were  being 
saved. 

The  Apostles  went  forth  and  preached  the  Gospel  as  they 
were  commanded ;  and  it  was  not  until  some  twenty  years  at 
least  after  their  mission  that  any  part  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  New  Testament  as  we  now  have  them  were  written. 

Our  Lord,  so  far  as  we  have  any  record  of  the  words  He 
uttered,  never  gave  them  any  charge  to  write  anything.  They 
were  to  preach  and  proclaim  by  word  of  mouth  the  Gospel, 
make  disciples  of  the  people  among  all  the  nations  or  races 
of  people  on  the  earth,  baptizing  and  thus  bringing  into  the 
Church  those  that  should  believe  the  Gospel  as  they  were  to 
preach  and  to  teach  it;  and  the  promise  was,  "Whosoever 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." 

But  the  earliest  attempt  to  reduce  the  Gospel  to  writing,  that 
the  Church  of  the  believers  might  have  the  benefit  of  reading 
it  for  them.selves,  did  not  occur  for  some  twenty  years  or  more 
after  the  Gospel  had  been  preached,  and  Churches  —  that  is, 
local  Churches,  as  branches  of  the  one  Church  which  our  LORD 
founded  and  which  S.  Paul  declares  to  be  the  pillar  and  ground, 
stay  or  support,  "of  the  truth"  [i  Tim.  iii.  15]  —  had  been 
established  in  nearly  all  parts  of  the  earth. 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  the  very  first  to  be  written  of 
the  books  we  now  have  in  our  Canon,  or  collection  of  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  was  the  first  of  S.  Paul's  Epis- 
tles to  the  Thessalonians,  about  A.  D.  52,  nineteen  years  after 
the  Crucifixion.  The  Gospels  as  we  now  have  them  were  not 
written  until  somewhat  later.  It  is  sometimes  claimed,  indeed, 
that  S.  Matthew  wrote,  for  the  converts  from  Judaism  who  lived 
in  Palestine,  a  Gospel  in  the  Hebrew  language,  or  what  was 
called  Hebrew  at  the  time.  But  we  have  not  that  Gospel  as  he 
wrote  it,  if  ever  he  wrote  one ;  and  what  we  have  is  of  a  later 
date,  say  about  A.  D.  60.  And  the  other  Gospels  were  written 
later  on,  until  perhaps  that  of  S.  John  sometime  in  the  last 
decade  of  the  first  century,  perhaps  A.  D.  92. 

I    think  we   have    satisfactory  evidence    that  there  was   at    a 


Holy  Scrip  tilers  as  I  lie  Basis  of  Clnircli  JJ7ii(y.     195 

much  earlier  date  than  even  the  earhest  of  the  Epistles,  both 
a  stated  form  of  words  for  use  in  the  administration  of  the 
Holy  Supper,  and  also  a  "  form  of  sound  words "  [2  Tim. 
i.  13],  which  was  used  in  baptism  at  least,  if  not  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  and  commonly  accepted  both  as  an  expression  and 
as  a  test  of  the  faith  of  those  who  were  to  be  received  and 
retained  in  the  holy  fellowship  of  the  Apostolic  Church;  dissent 
from  which  was  **  heresy"  in  the  technical  sense,  while  di- 
visions and  contentions  among  those  who  were  still  retained  in 
the  Church  was  called  schism  ;  and  S.  John  speaks  of  some 
who  "went  out  from"  that  fellowship  as  being  in  some  sense 
'*  anti-CllRIST  "  [i  John  ii.  18]. 

But  the  Scriptures  that  have  come  down  to  us  were  all  of 
them,  or  at  least  nearly  all  of  them,  written  for  a  local — I 
will  not  say  a  temporary  —  purpose.  Thus  S.  Matthew  is 
commonly  held  to  have  written  primarily  and  chiefly  for  the 
Christian  converts  from  Judaism  who  lived  in  Palestine. 
S.  Mark,  though  with  less  unanimity  of  agreement,  is  said  to 
have  written  under  the  immediate  guidance  of  S.  Peter,  and  at 
Alexandria  for  the  Christians  who  were  living  in  that  part  of 
Africa ;  while  S.  Luke's  Gospel  is  said  to  have  been  written  at 
Rome  under  the  special  guidance  of  S.  Paul.  S.  Paul's  Epistles, 
as  is  well  known,  and  is  also  manifest  from  the  Epistles  them- 
selves, were  written  to  local  Churches,  —  as  that  at  Rome,  that 
at  Corinth,  etc.,  —  and  were  more  or  less  intended  for  the  dis- 
cussion and  settlement  of  questions  which,  if  not  of  a  temporary 
nature,  were  yet  specially  interesting  and  important  for  those  to 
whom  the  letters  were  addressed.  This  remark  applies  with 
special  force  to  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  to  Titus,  and  to 
Philemon. 

Yet  doubtless  what  these  holy  and  inspired  men  wrote  was 
(for  the  most  part  shall  I  say?  i  Cor.  vii.  40)  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  remains  as  of  inestimable  value  as  indicating 
what  was  "  the  substantial  deposit  of  Christian  Faith  and  Order 
committed  by  CllRiST  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Church  unto 
the  end  of  the  world,"  to  quote  again  the  declarations  of  our 
House  of  Bishops  on  this  subject.  But  the  fact  was  and  is,  that 
the  Gospel  was  preached  for  many  years  before  it  was  written 
and  committed  to  writing  as  Holy  Scripture  at  all ;  and  the 
Church  was  founded  and  organized  in  some  form  or  another, 
and  more  or  less  completely  in  all  the  larger  cities  and  coun- 


196  The  Church  Review,    . 

tries  of  the  Roman  Empire,  which  then   inchided  pretty  much 
the  whole  world. 

The  controlling  fact  is  that  the  Apostles  and  the  ministry 
themselves  were  not  only  to  preach  the  Gospel,  but  they  were 
also  to  organize  the  Church,  or  local  branches  of  it,  one  in  each 
city  or  province.  When  the  writers  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
speak  of  this  matter  at  all,  it  is  either  by  way  of  allusion  to  what 
had  been  done,  or  by  way  of  instruction  to  some  one  who  had 
been  ordained,  and  received  authority  for  the  work  of  organiz- 
ing Churches,  selecting  and  ordaining  Elders  and  Deacons,  as 
well  as  giving  directions  for  their  professions  of  the  Faith,  —  for 
their  worship  and  the  principles  of  the  godly  life  which  they 
were  to  observe  and  enforce. 

Herein  we  have  the  reason  why  there  is  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament  no  express  or  full  description  of  the  Church,  its 
organization,  and  its  methods.  The  people  for  whom  the  Scrip- 
tures were  written,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  or  three  books 
I  have  just  mentioned,  had  nothing  to  do  with  organizing  the 
Church.  It  was  not  their  work  or  duty.  They  could  not  do  it. 
It  was  done  for  them  by  the  Apostles  whom  our  LoRD  had 
chosen  for  that  purpose,  and  to  whom  He  gave  the  command 
to  go  and  teach  all  nations  to  observe  whatsoever  he  had  com- 
manded them.  And  as  in  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus  at  least, 
we  find  that  the  Apostles  gave  like  authority  to  others,  unin- 
spired men  whom  they  chose  for  the  work. 

The  several  books  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  thus 
written,  began  at  a  very  early  date  to  be  collected  into  a  whole, 
in  several  at  least  of  the  great  centres  of  Christian  population, 
as  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Carthage.  But  we  have  no  definite 
information  in  regard  to  this  collection.  We  have  indeed  a  few 
hints  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves  in  regard  to  the  cir- 
culation of  these  Scriptures,  the  desire  to  get  them,  and  the 
anxiety  to  read  and  understand  them  [Col,  iv.  16;  Luke  i.  1-5  ; 
Acts  i. ;   2  Peter  iii.  16]. 

•  But  it  is  most  natural  that  the  Christians  in  any  one  city 
should  be  extremely  anxious  as  soon  as  they  had  heard  of  any 
writing  by  one  of  the  Apostles,  or  perhaps  by  any  one  so 
intimately  associated  with  any  one  of  them  as  to  be  specially 
valuable  as  a  teacher,  to  get  a  copy  of  the  work,  epistle,  or 
gospel,  as  the  case  might  be.  And  thus,  as  .we  know,  collec- 
tions began  to  be  made  in  a   large  number  of  places;    these 


Holy  Scriphircs  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Uiiiiy.     197 

collections,  at  the  earliest  date  at  which  we  can  get  any 
certain  information  concernini^  them,  differe  1  in  some  less 
important  details  from  one  another.  And  in  some  few  cases, 
books  not  now  received  into  our  Canon,  as  the  Epistles  of 
Clement  and  of  Barnabas^  were  received  and  read  in  the  public 
worship ;  while  others  that  we  do  now  receive  had  not  been 
receiv^ed,  or  at  least  adopted  as  part  of  their  sacred  Scriptures 
in  some  few  of  the  early  collections  that  we  know  of. 

We  have,  indeed,  early  lists  of  the  books  received,  and  tliere 
were  two  or  three  attempts  by  local  and  provincial  synods  to 
define  the  Canon.  But  there  was  no  such  action  by  any  one 
of  the  General  Councils  of  the  Universal  Church. 

And  yet  the  Church  in  the  most  important  sense,  though 
not  acting  in  any  synod,  or  in  its  organic  capacity,  was  the 
judge,  and  did  decide  what  books  should  be  received.  And 
in  this  it  seems  to  have  been  guided  by  its  religious  instincts, 
shall  we  say?  or  shall  we  call  it  rather  that  Holy  Spirit  which 
was  promised  to  be  in  the  Church  and  its  guide  through  all 
time? 

If  now  we  turn  to  the  use  w^hich  the  early  Christians  made  of 
these  Scriptures,  we  have  three  points  to  consider. 

1.  The  use  they  made  of  them  in  their  public  worship.  Of 
course  they  had  no  printed  copies,  a^  we  have,  that  could  be  put 
into  every  man's  hands.  Copies  were  expensive,  made  only  by 
transcription  by  the  hand.  But  in  the  very  earliest  stage  it 
appears  that  they  were  accustomed  to  read  them  in  their  weekly 
and  daily  assemblies  with  the  greatest  reverence  and  deference, 
—  very  much  as  we  now  read  Bishops'  charges  and  the  pastoral 
letters  of  our  House  of  Bishops.  Reuss  \_Histofy  of  the  Canon^ 
pp.  32,  138]  says  that  the  book  of  Revelation,  which  he  sup- 
poses to  have  been  written  earlier  than  the  Gospel  by  S.  John, 
say  A.  D.  65-68,  was  the  first  of  the  books  now  included  in  our 
New  Testament  Canon  that  was  read  in  public  worship  as  part 
of  Holy  Scriptures.  Soon,  however,  the  Church  began  to  read 
from  them  all,  as  second  lessons  in  the  services,  as  we  do  now, 
and  as  they  were  at  first  accustomed  to  do  from  the  Prophets 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

2.  In  the  next  place,  I  refer  to  the  early  Christian  writers  who 
wrote  in  defence  of  Christianity,  and  for  the  most  part  against 
its  avowed  enemies,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  did  not  profess  to 
have  received  Christianity  at  all  in  any  form  or  under  any  name. 


198  The  Church  Review. 

—  the  Apologists,  as  they  are  called.  Of  these  we  have  the  names 
of  some  twelve  or  fifteen  that  have  come  down  to  us,  although 
by  far  the  larger  part  of  their  writings  is  lost.  In  the  East 
we  have  Julian,  Tatian,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen.  In  Africa  and  the  West 
we  have  Tertullian,  Minucius  Felix,  Cyprian,  Arnobius,  Lac- 
tantius,  and  Irenseus.  Of  these,  two  — namely,  Irenaius  and 
Tertullian  —  wrote  in  defence  of  the  Faith  against  the  early 
heretics  and  separatists. 

Of  those  who  wrote  against  the  enemies  of  Christianity,  — 
that  is,  the  unconverted  Jews  and  the  heathen,  —  and  in  fact,  of 
all  of  them  when  writing  against  these  adversaries  of  Christianity, 
we  must  note  the  fact  that  although  they  quote  the  genuine 
Scriptures  with  the  utmost  reverence  and  deference,  always 
accepting  their  statements,  whether  of  fact  or  of  doctrine,  as  in 
no  way  hable  to  dispute  or  distrust,  they  cannot  be  expected  to 
quote  them  as  they  would  have  done  if  they  were  writing  to 
professing  Christians  of  whatever  name.  Nor  yet  of  course 
can  we  expect  them  to  show  us  very  definitely  how  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  were  regarded  by  the  Church  or  its  members. 
Their  writings  are  valuable  for  the  purpose  now  before  us, 
chiefly  as  showing  what  books  were  received  and  regarded  as 
of  authority  in  the  Church ;  and  in  this  respect  they  are  most 
invaluable. 

3.  Turning  now  to  those  who  wrote  against  the  heresies  of 
those  who  called  themselves  and  claimed  to  be  Christians,  we 
have  especially  the  two  already  named,  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 
Irenaeus  was  born  and  trained  in  the  East,  Asia  Minor.  He 
had  seen,  as  he  says,  Polycarp,  who  was  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  and 
who  had  been  a  pupil  and  personal  friend  of  the  Apostle  S. 
John.  He  became  Bishop  of  Lyons  about  A.  D.  178.  The 
heretics  against  whom  he  contends  were  chiefly  those  that  are 
now  known  as  Gnostics,  —  not  Agnostics,  —  who  claimed  to  un- 
derstand all  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  and  to  have  a  philosophy 
which  taught  them  many  things  not  to  be  found  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ;  and  they  also  claimed  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  and 
deduce  from  them  many  doctrines  not  generally  held  in  the 
Church.  And  while  there  were  many  who  were  either  of  this 
number,  cr  inclined  to  their  views,  and  were  thus  both  heretics 
and  schismatics  remaining  in  the  Church,  there  were  also  many 
who,  as  Irenaeus  says,  '*  being  more  anxious  to  be  sophists  of 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Clnirch  U^iity.    199 

words  than  disciples  of  the  Truth,"  separated  themselves 
from  the  Church,  and  "assembled  themselves  in  unauthorized 
meetings  "  [book  iii.  c.  iii.  §  2]  of  their  own  and  by  them- 
selves. 

S.  Ircnaeus  constantly  quotes  the  lioly  Scriptures  as  un- 
questionably true  and  authentic.  Wa  also  shows  how  these 
errorists  pervert  its  true  meaning,  and  attribute  to  mere  in- 
cidents of  phrase,  and  even  of  the  letters  used,  significations 
and  an  importance  which  they  do  not  deserve.  He  also 
shows  the  absurdity  and  evil  tendency  of  their  claims  that 
the  Apostles  knew  and  held  the  views  which  they  teach,  but 
refrained  from  committing  them  to  writing  either  in  the  Gos- 
pels or  the  Epistles  which  they  wrote,  because  the  people 
were  not  at  that  time  sufficiently  advanced  in  understanding 
to  accept  and  appreciate  them.  They  also  claimed  that  these 
doctrines  had  been  handed  down  to  them  by  tradition,  or 
revealed  by  special  inspirations  and  revelations  to  Valentius 
and  other  founders  and  leaders  of  their  various  sects. 

S.  Irena^us  does  indeed  constantly  quote  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  with  the  utmost  reverence  and  deference  to 
their  authority  and  their  very  words  ;  yet  he  does  so  in  a 
manner  that  shows  that  he  regards  them  —  the  written  word 
—  as  subordinate  to  the  Faith  as  it  was  delivered  to  the 
Church  by  the  Apostles  before  the  Scriptures  were  written, 
and  handed  down  to  his  times,  one  and  the  same  in  each 
and  every  one  of  the  Churches,  —  that  is,  provincial  Churches, 
which  had  been  founded  in  the  chief  or  capital  city  of  each 
province.  He  writes  [book  i.  c.  x.  §  i]  the  Apostles'  Creed 
as  we  now  have  it  in  substance,  though  not  in  the  exact 
words.  In  fact,  De  Barron  has  shown  in  his  work,  TJie 
Greek  Origin  of  the  Apostles''  Creed,  that  the  early  Christians 
never  stated  the  Creed  in  the  exact  words  in  which  it  was 
used  in  the  Church  and  by  the  initiated,  and  gives  the 
reason  for  it  [p.  40].  He  claims  that  it  was  first  written  in 
its  exact  form  of  words  by  Marcellus,  Bishop  of  Ancyra, 
about  A.  D.  341. 

But  S.  Irenaeus,  as  I  have  said,  recites  the  Creed  in  sub- 
stance as  we  now  have  it,  some  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  the  time  of  Marcellus.  This  Creed,  he  says,  "  the 
Church,  though  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world,  even 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  has  received  from  the  Apostles  and 


200  The  Church  Review. 

their  disciples."  This  "Faith,"  he  says  [§  2],  *' the  Church, 
although  scattered  throughout  the  whole  world,  has  received, 
as  if  occupying  but  one  and  the  same  house,  and  carefully  pre- 
serves it.  .  .  .  She  believes  these  points  of  doctrine,  and  pro- 
claims them  as  if  she  had  but  one  soul,  and  one  and  the  same 
heart;  and  she  teaches  and  hands  them  down  with  perfect  har- 
mony, as  if  she  had  but  one  mouth;  for  although  the  languages 
are  different,  yet  the  tradition  in  its  meaning  and  import  is  one 
and  the  same.  For  the  Churches,  which  have  been  planted  in 
Germany,  in  Spain,  in  France,  in  the  East,  in  Egypt,  in  Libya,  or 
even  those  that  have  been  established  in  the  central  regions  of 
the  world,  do  not  differ  in  the  Faith  they  hold,  the  Creed  they 
profess.  .  .  ,  Nor  will  any  one  of  the  rulers  ot  the  Churches,  how- 
ever highly  gifted  he  may  be  in  point  of  eloquence,  teach  any  dif- 
ferent doctrine;  nor  on  the  other  hand,  will  he  who  is  deficient 
in  power  of  expression  inflict  any  injury  on  the  tradition."  But 
among  the  "heretics"  and  Dissenters,  he  says,  "  there  are  as  many 
schemes  of  redemption  as  there  are  teachers  of  their  opinions  " 
[book  i.  c.  xxi.  §1]. 

This  is  a  favorite  topic  with  this  author,  and  he  frequently  re- 
curs to  it.  Thus,  in  book  iii.  [c.  i.  §  2],  he  says,  "  When  we  refer 
them  to  the  tradition  that  originated  with  the  Apostles  and  is 
preserved  by  means  of  a  succession  in  the  ministry  in  the 
Churches,  they  object  to  tradition.  ...  It  is  in  the  power  of  all, 
therefore  [c.  iii.  §  i],  in  every  Church,  who  may  wish  to  see  the 
truth,  to  contemplate  clearly  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles  mani- 
fested throughout  the  whole  world ;  and  we  are  in  a  position  to 
reckon  up  those  who  were  by  the  Apostles  instituted  Bishops  in 
the  Churches,  and  to  demonstrate  the  succession  of  these  men 
to  our  own  times.  .  .  .  Since,  however,  it  would  be  very  tedious 
to  reckon  up  the  succession  in  all  the  Churches,  we  put  to  con- 
fusion .  .  .  those  who  assemble  in  unauthorized  meetings,  by 
indicating"  several  of  the  ancient  Churches.  And  am.ong  these 
as  most  conspicuous  and  as  being  in  some  sense  the  centre  of 
the  world,  he  mentions  Rome,  giving  a  list  of  their  Bishops  from 
Linus  to  his  own  time.  (S.  Peter  is  not  one  of  the  list.)  But 
he  mentions  also  several  others,  more  especially  those  in  the 
East. 

Now,  as  this  idea  constantly  recurs  in  the  somewhat  long  essay 
of  Irenaeus  and  pervades  his  whole  discussion,  I  will  cite  one 
or  two  more  passages  [book  iv.  c.  xxvi.  §  2]  :   "  Wherefore  it 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  oj  CInirch  Unity.    201 

is  incumbent  to  obey  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  —  those  wlio, 
as  I  have  shown,  possess  the  succession  from  the  i\p(jstles, 
those  wlio  together  with  the  succession  of  the  h^piscopate  have 
received  the  certain  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father.  WwX.  it  is  incumbent  on  us  also  to  hold  in  sus- 
picion all  others  who  depart  from  the  primitive  succession  and 
assemble  themselves  together  "  in  other  places,  in  *'  meetings 
of  their  own." 

Again  [book  v.  c.  xx.  §  i]  :  "Now  all  these  heretics  are  of 
much  later  date  than  the  Bishops  to  whom  the  yXposlles  com- 
mitted the  Churches,  which  fact  I  have  taken  all  pains  to 
demonstrate  in  the  third  book.  .  .  .  But  the  path  of  duty  of 
those  belonging  to  the  Church  circumscribes  the  whole  world 
as  possessing  the  sure  tradition  from  the  Apostles,  and  enables 
us  to  see  that  the  Faith  of  all  is  one  and  the  same,  .  .  .  since 
all  are  cognizant  of  the  same  spirit,  conversant  with  the  same 
commandments,  and  preserve  the  same  form  of  ecclesiastical 
constitution,  and  expect  the  one  advent  of  the  Lord,  and  await 
the  same  salvation  of  the  complete  man,  —  that  is,  of  soul  and 
body." 

Tertullian  fell  into  some  of  the  errors  of  the  Montanists, 
though  it  is  generally  held  that  he  never  separated  himself 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  He  had  been  trained 
a  lawyer,  and  shows  the  results  of  that  training  in  the  tract  of 
his  on  The  Prescriptions  of  Heretics,  from  which  only  I  shall 
make  citations.  He  agrees  in  general  with  the  views  I  have 
cited  from  Irenaeus,  though  it  is  most  likely  that  the  two  men 
had.no  personal  knowledge  of  each  other's  existence,  —  the  one 
living  in  Lyons  in  Gaul,  and  the  other  in  the  north  of  Africa, 
at  about  the  same  time;  that  is,  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century. 

Tertullian  takes  the  same  view  as  Irenaeus  with  regard  to  the 
first  preaching  of  Christianity,  —  the  tradition  or  handing  down 
of  the  Faith  in  each  of  the  Churches  that  had  been  founded  by 
the  Apostles  or  their  immediate  successors ;  but  he  does  not 
undertake  to  show  to  the  heretics  that  the  views  held  by  them 
were  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  He  takes  the  ground,  on  the 
contrary,  that  they  have  no  right  to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures. 
The  Scriptures  were  written  in  the  Church  by  members  of  the 
Church,  and  for  the  use  of  the  disciples  that  were  in  the  Church 
and  remained  in  its  communion  and  fellowship,  so  that  they  that 


202  The  Chttrch  Review. 

had  left  the  Church  not  only  had  no  right  to  claim  to  justify  or 
defend  their  views  by  argument  and  texts  derived  from  it,  but 
that  they  had  no  right  to  use  the  Scriptures  at  all ;  it  was  no 
Holy  Scriptures  for  them ;  their  use,  of  it  was  like  that  of  a  citi- 
zen of  one  country,  —  these  United  States,  for  example,  —  who 
should  cite  from  and  claim  as  his  authority  and  vindication  the 
laws  of  another  country,  as  Turkey,  Russia,  or  Germany. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Tertullian  had  been  a  lawyer ;  and 
his  idea  was  that  heretics  who  had  left  the  Church  should  be 
thrown  out  of  court  as  having  no  status,  or  standing,  or  right  to 
be  heard  there  [§§  15-21]. 

It  is  indeed  quite  true  that  Tertullian  does  claim  that  the 
Scriptures  themselves  do  not  teach  the  doctrines  which  these 
heretics  hold,  and  that  they  are  without  foundation  in  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  when  rightly  understood.  But  his  main  line  of 
argument  is  that  they  have  no  right  to  exist  as  Churches  or  use 
the  Scriptures. 

Tertullian  gives  substantially,  though  not  verbally,  the 
Apostles'  Creed  as  given  by  S.  Irenaeus,  and  makes  it,  in  fact, 
as  he  calls  it,  "  The  Rule  of  Faith,"  by  which  all  doctrines  and 
teachings  should  be  tested. 

He  says:  "  Immediately  therefore  the  Apostles,  .  .  .  having 
chosen  by  lot  a  twelfth,  .  .  .  having  throughout  Judea  borne 
witness  to  the  Faith,  w^ent  forth  into  the  world  and  preached  the 
same  doctrine  of  the  same  Faith  to  the  nations,  and  forthwith 
founded  Churches  in  every  city  from  whom  the  other  Churches 
thenceforward  borrowed  the  tradition  of  the  Faith  and  the  seeds 
of  doctrine,  and  are  daily  deriving  them  that  they  may  become 
Churches.  Indeed,  it  is  on  this  account  only  that  they  will  be 
able  to  consider  themselves  Apostolic,  as  being  the  offspring  of 
Apostolic  Churches ;  .  .  .  therefore  the  Churches,  although 
they  are  so  many  and  so  great,  constitute  but  the  one  primitive 
Church  founded  by  the  Apostles  "  [§  20]. 

But  "  if  there  be  any  heretics  that  are  bold  enough  to  plant 
themselves  in  the  midst  of  the  Apostolic  age,  ...  let  them  pro- 
duce the  original  records  of  their  Churches;  let  them  unfold  the 
roll  of  their  Bishops,  extending  down  in  due  succession  from  the 
beginning  in  such  manner  that  their  first  Bishop  will  be  able  to 
show  for  his  rrrdainer  and  predecessor  some  one  of  the  Apostles 
or  of  Apostolic  men  who  continued  stedfast  with  the  Apostles. 
For  in  this  manner  do  all  the  Apostolic  Churches  keep  their 


Holy  Scripticrcs  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Unity.    203 

registers;  as  the  Church  of  Snnrna,  .  .  .  tlic  Church  of  Rome. 
In  the  same  way  the  other  Churches  exhibit  the  names  of  th(jse 
whom,  having  been  appointed  to  their  l^^iscopal  places  by 
Apostles,  they  regard  as  transmitters  of  Apostolic  seed."  He 
mentions  several  others  besides  Smyrna  and  Rome,  and  says, 
as  Ircnaeus  has  done,  that  there  is  no  one  who  is  not  near 
enough  to  some  one  of  these  centres  to  consult  its  Bishop  and 
find  out  from  him  what  was  "  the  Faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,"  which  all  Churches  must  keep  and  teach  as  the  con- 
dition of  their  remaining  in  the  communion  of  the  One  Holy, 
Apostolic,  and  Catholic  Church. 

Tertullian  never  indeed  intimates  or  hints  that  this  Faith  could 
be  any  other,  or  different,  from  what  was  and  is  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  But  in  his  view,  as  in  that  of  Irenseus,  the 
Faith,  the  tradition,  the  doctrine,  handed  down  in  these  Churches 
by  all  and  everywhere,  was  the  test,  the  thing  first  to  be  con- 
sulted, and  the  Scriptures  later,  and  in  a  sense  subordinate  to 
the  Faith  thus  once  delivered  and  perpetually  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles  by  the  succession  of  Bishops. 

Of  course,  besides  these  two  Fathers  and  the  others  that 
wrote  apologetically  and  controversially,  whether  against 
heathen  or  heretics,  there  were  many  others  whose  writings 
have  come  down  to  us  and  are  very  valuable  as  showing  what 
views  were  then  entertained  on  the  three  great  questions,  —  what 
constituted  the  Canon,  of  what  authority  they  were  as  binding 
on  the  consciences  of  Christians,  and  what  were  the  true  or 
allowable  principles  of  interpretation.  On  these  points  they  are 
clear  and  instructive.  The  authority  of  the  Scriptures  was  held 
to  be  supreme,  or  at  least  in  no  sense  inferior  and  subordinate 
as  a  matter  of  authority  to  the  Creeds  and  Church  usages,  or 
organization  and  discipline  which  have  been  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles  or  their  times,  as  shown  by  universal  consent  and 
observance. 

Not  only  did  these  writers  discuss  the  questions  that  had  arisen 
in  their  times,  or  had  occurred  to  their  own  minds  as  they  stud- 
ied the  books  and  compared  them  one  with  another,  but  they 
compiled  synopses,  —  contrasting  and  comparing  the  Gos- 
pels, explaining  as  best  they  could  the  apparent  discrepancies, 
and  suggesting  what  appeared  to  them  to  be  the  best  modes  of 
interpreting  and  explaining  difficult  and  unintelligible  passages. 

How    far  these   principles  and   modes   of  interpretation   are 


204  The  CJmrch  Review. 


o 


bligatory  on  us  in  this  nineteenth  century,  and  will  be  so  on  the 
centuries  to  come,  is  another  and  an  entirely  different  question. 
But  I  suppose  that  the  Church  in  its  plan  for  unity,  and  in  its 
practical  application  after  that  unity  shall  have  been  effected, 
and  to  the  extent  to  which  at  any  time  it  may  have  been 
effected,  will  feel  bound  to  tolerate  the  modes  and  principles 
that  were   then   in  use. 

But  undoubtedly,  on  the  other  hand,  the  altered  state  of 
things  will  demand  and  produce  some  changes  in  this  respect. 

In  fact,  every  legitimate  branch  of  the  Church  claims,  and  has 
[Matt,  xviii.  i8]  the  right  to  interpret  the  Scriptures  for  itself 
and  its  own  members.  [See  also  the  English  Articles,  xxi.  and 
xxxiv.] 

We  have,  then,  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  these  three  char- 
acteristics:  (i)  Revelation  from  GOD  of  truths  and  facts  that 
are  beyond  human  insight  or  discovery;  (2)  Attested  by  mir- 
acles such  as  no  man  can  work  except  GOD  be  with  him  ;  and 
(3)   Committed  to  a  ministry  of  Divine  appointment. 

Our  Lord  speaks  of  the  miracles  He  wrought  as  attesting  His 
word  and  the  Divinity  of  His  nature,  on  several  occasions  and 
in  different  ways,  thus,  S.  John  [xv.  24]  :  "  If  I  had  not  done 
among  them  the  works  which  none  other  man  did,  they  had 
not  had  sin ;  but  now  have  they  both  seen  and  hated  both  me 
and  my  FATHER." 

And  not  only  do  our  Lord's  words  in  appointing  His  minis- 
try imply  a  perpetual  continuance,  "  always,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world,"  but  S.  Paul,  in  two  places  at  least,  speaks  of 
this  ministry  collectively  in  a  way  that  implies  its  perpetuity; 
thus,  in  I  Cor.  xii.  28 :  "  And  GOD  hath  set  some  in  the 
Church,  first,  apostles;  secondarily,  prophets;  and  thirdly, 
teachers,"  etc.  Here  are  three  Orders  expressly  mentioned 
and  denoted  by  words  that  express  this  fact;  and  whatever 
we  may  think  of  the  names,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  their 
threefoldness.  Again  [Eph.  iv.  11],  the  same  Apostle  speaks 
of  several  Orders  which  our  LORD  "  gave,"  or  appointed  ;  and 
he  also  speaks  of  the  object  of  their  appointment,  —  "for  the 
perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the 
edifying  of  the  Body  of  CHRIST"  (the  Church),  "till  we  all 
come  in  the  unity  of  the  Faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
Son  OF  God,  unto  a  perfect  man"  (the  perfection  of  manhood), 
"  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ." 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  CliiD'ch  Unity.    205 

Surely  nothing  more  can  be  necessary  either  in  the  hue  and 
character  of  the  work  to  be  done,  or  in  the  constitution  and 
continuity  of  the  Orders  of  tlie  ministry,  than  is  thus  clearly 
described  and  indicated.  And  this  ministry  is  expressly  de- 
clared to  have  been  "  <^iven,"  "  set,"  and  appointed  by  our  Lord 
Himself,  and  for  the  work  and  the  only  work  which  He  would 
have  anybody  do  or  attempt  to  do  in  His  name,  and  for  the 
promotion  of  the  cause  for  which  He  came  into  the  world  and 
took  upon  Himself  our  nature,  and  died  on  Calvary. 

Now,  of  the  three  classes  of  professing  Christians  of  whom  I 
spoke  at  the  beginning  of  this  essay,  the  first  one  that  I  named 

—  the  adherents  of  the  Papal  Supremacy  —  accept  these  three 
elements,  —  the  Scriptures,  as  containing  a  revelation;  miracles 
as  proofs  of  the  fact  of  a  revelation ;  and  a  ministry  or  priest- 
hood of  perpetual  obligation,  and  without  which  there  can  be 
no  true  Church,  or  legitimate  branch  of  the  Church  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

But  they,  as  I  have  said,  make  the  Church,  or  at  least  its 
ministry,  and  especially  its  visible  head,  the  Pope,  coequal  in 
point  of  authority  with  the  Scriptures  themselves.  Hence  we 
cannot,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  our  Declaration  or  Pro- 
posal, unite  on  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  their  sense,  and  in  the  use 
they  propose  to  make  of  them.  For  in  their  sense,  though  they 
may  be  regarded  and  accepted  as  "  the  revealed  Word  of  GOD," 
they  cannot  be  regarded  as  containing  all  that  it  is  necessary  for 
one  to  believe  as  a  Christian,  or  to  teach  as  one  of  the  Divinely 
appointed  ministry;  nor  do  they  apparently  regard  them  as  a 
standard  that  may  not  be  departed  from. 

The  next  class  that  I  mentioned  —  the  extreme  Protestants 

—  also  hold  a  view  of  the  nature,  position,  and  functions  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  that  is  equally  fatal  to  their  serving  as  any  basis 
of  Church  unity,  or  Church  existence,  in  fact,  in  any  proper 
sense  of  the  word. 

The  persons  I  am  now  speaking  of  do  indeed  hold  to  the 
first  two  elements  spoken  of,  —  namely,  revelation  and  miracles, 

—  as  attesting  it;  and  in  this  respect  Christianity  in  their  views 
differs  .essentially  and  toto  ccclo  from  any  of  the  heathen  reli- 
gions. But  in  rejecting  as  they  do  the  third  element,  —  the 
Church,  and  a  permanent  ministry  or  priesthood,  as  of  Divine 
appointment,  with  power  to  interpret  and  teach  the  Scriptures, 
with  a  perpetual  succession  in  what  our  Declaration  calls  "  the 


2o6  The  Church  Review. 

Historic  Episcopate," — they  reduce  the  Gospel  of  CHRIST  to 
the  same  level,  and  subject  it  to  the  same  fate,  as  has  befallen 
the  great  heathen  reHgions,  —  the  Chinese,  the  Hindu,  the  Budd- 
hist, and  such  like. 

In  this  view  we  have  the  Scriptures  indeed,  and  they  are  of 
inestimable  value;  and  they  and  their  contents  are  attested 
in  the  most  satisfactory  manner  by  miracles.  But  who  is  to 
teach  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Scriptures?  Who,  in  fact, 
is  to  say,  who  has  any  authority  to  say,  what  are  the  Scrip- 
tures and  what  are  the  doctrines  they  teach?  Who  may  say 
whether  this,  that,  or  the  other  form  of  confessing  or  profess- 
ing one's  belief,  amounts  to  a  profession  of  the  Christian 
Faith?  For  surely  there  is  such  a  thing,  and  we  are  warned 
against  the  danger  of  it,  —  a  form  of  confession  or  profession 
which  does  not  amount  to  the  Christian  Faith,  does  not  fit 
one  for  Holy  Baptism,  nor  qualify  him  to  receive  the  Holy 
Supper,  "rightly  discerning  the  Lord's  Body"  [i  Cor.  xi.  29]. 
Who,  in  fact,  may  decide  what  is  that  confession  of  faith  that 
makes  one  a  Christian? 

And  there  is  no  escape  from  this  issue.  Either  every  one 
must  judge  for  himself,  and  interpret  the  Scriptures  for  him- 
self as  best  he  can,  or  he  must  follow  the  guidance  of  some 
one  else.  If  he  decides  for  himself,  we  have  abundantly  seen 
that  there  is  no  doctrine  so  absurd  but  that  it  may  be  held, 
and  no  duty  so  sacred  but  that  it  may  be  explained  away 
and  neglected.  If  he  chooses  for  himself  who  shall  be  his 
guides  and  teachers,  the  case  is  not  much  better;  but  if  he  seeks 
out  and  accepts  those  that  the  Lord  has  appointed,  there  must 
be  something  of  submission,  docility,  and  obedience,  as  well  as 
a  profession  or  confession  of  faith  before  men. 

Every  Church,  whether  of  human  origin  or  Divine,  must 
claim  and  exercise  some  authority  over  its  members,  so  far 
at  least  as  to  exclude  those  who  do  not  believe  what  it  re- 
gards as  essential  in  doctrine,  or  live  a  godly  life  according 
to  its  notions  of  what  constitutes  godliness. 

Doubtless  our  LORD  gave  to  His  immediate  Apostles  au- 
thority for  this  purpose;  and  we  find  also  that  ever)  those 
who  had  no  special  inspiration  to  guide  them,  as  in  the  case  of 
Timothy  and  Titus,  had  express  instructions  implying  author- 
ity, not  only  to  select  and  ordain  for  the  people  Elders  and 
Deacons,  but  also  to  see  to  the  soundness  of  their  Faith,  to 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  CInirch  Uiiily.    207 

direct  their  worship,  and   to  explain  and  enforce  the  rules   and 
principles  of  a  godly  life. 

What  gives  this  point  the  greater  importance  is  the  fact  that 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  we  are  often  and  again  warned  against 
"false  teachers,"  that  would  come  and  lead  aua}'  disciples  after 
them  [Matt.  vii.  15  ;   xxix.  1 1  ;   2  Tim.  iv.  3]. 

Now  I  know  of  but  two  ways,  as  indicated  in  Holy  Scriptures, 
by  the  one  or  the  other  of  which  alone  can  we  determine 
whom  we  may  regard  as  Divinely  appointed,  and  to  whom  we 
may  safely  trust  ourselves  in  these  most  sacred  and  most  im- 
portant concerns.  The  one  is  Apostolic  descent  by  actual, 
visible,  tactual  succession  from  those  whom  our  Lord  ap- 
pointed ;  and  the  other  is  miracles  performed  by  those  who 
claim  to  speak  in  God's  name  and  be  His  ministers. 

We  have  in  the  Old  Testament  two  classes  of  Divine  teachers 
clearly  distinguished  from  each  other  in  this  way,  —  Priests  and 
Prophets,  though  of  course  the  same  individual  may  have  in 
some  cases  been  both  a  Priest  and  a  Prophet. 

But  the  Priesthood,  including  HiglvPriest,  Priests,  and  Levites, 
came  to  their  office  by  descent  from  Levi,  Aaron,  etc.,  and 
needed  no  other  testimony  or  vindication  of  their  right  to  per- 
form the  duties  and  claim  the  privileges  and  prerogatives  of 
their  office.  But  the  Prophets  who  w^ere  not  in  the  priestly 
line  vindicated  their  claim  to  speak  from  GoD,  and  in  His 
name,  by  miracles,  as  in  the  case  of  Elijah,  Elisha,  and  Isaiah, 
to  name  no  others. 

It  w^ould  seem,  therefore,  that  there  are  and  can  be  but  the 
two  classes,  each  with  its  appropriate  sign  and  verification  of 
authority,  —  lineal  descent  from  those  who  were  at  first  Divinely 
appointed,  and  miracles. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  position  which  this  view  of  the  last 
named  of  the  elements  furnished  for  us  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
puts  Christianity  itself  on  a  level  with  the  heathen  religions 
already  named.  The  founders  of  those  religions  did  not  found 
or  build  a  Church,  and  they  instituted  no  ministry  or  priest- 
hood, who  should  take  their  writings  or  verbal  messages,  preach 
them  to  the  world,  explain  and  expound  them  for  all  who  might 
desire  information  and  guidance,  and  preserve,  protect,  and  ap- 
peal to  those  sacred  writings  forever,  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

Hence  when  degeneracy  came,  as  it  was  sure  to  come,  and 
when  diversities  of  opinion  should  arise  among  honest  and  sin- 


2o8  The  Church  Review. 

cere  inquirers,  or  be  suggested  by  ambitious  aspirants,  which 
were  no  less  sure  to  come  in  the  order  of  time  and  events, 
~  should  arise  and  plead  some  one  or  another  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  founder  of  their  religion  more  distinctly  or  emphatically  than 
the  rest,  —  there  was  no  one  to  decide,  no  one  to  whom  it  was  a 
duty  to  refer,  no  one  having  any  special  authority,  any  more 
than  any  other  who  might  happento  be  as  intelligent  and  have 
as  much  confidence  in  himself,  — •  perhaps  I  ought  to  say  as 
much  spiritual  pride  and  conceit,  —  to  whom  appeal  could  be 
made;  there  was  no  Divinely  appointed  Church,  ministry,  or 
priesthood,  and  the  result  was  a  division,  —  the  rising  of  a  new 
sect  Possibly  the  new  sect  was  an  improvement  upon  the  state 
of  things  that  existed  before  it  arose,  so  far  as  mere  purity  of 
doctrine  was  concerned,  and  possibly  it  was  not. 

But  there  was  no  help  for  it.  There  was  no  adequate  basis 
or  bond  of  unity;  and  the  followers  and  disciples  of  the  old 
religion  formed  as  numerous  sects,  and  became  as  diverse  from 
one'^another  as  our  modern  Christian  denominations.  There 
was  no  help  for  it,  and  nothing  that  could  be  done,  except  for 
each  of  these  persons  to  start  off,  get  as  many  followers  as  he 
could,  and  make  a  sect,  —  a  Church  of  his  and  their  own. 

The  only  remedy  for  this  evil  is  ''the  Church  idea,"  the  doc- 
trine and  belief  that  the  Author  and  Giver  of  our  Salvation 
instituted  a  Church  and  appointed  a  ministry  whom  believers 
must  receive,  if  they  would  receive  Him  [Matt.  x.  46;  Mark 
ix.  37;  John  xiii.  20],  — the  ministry  of  Whom  we  read  in  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  as  actually  doing  the  work  He  had  appointed 
them  to  do,  and  with  whom  He  promised  to  be  "  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

But  from  the  days  when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  began  to  claim 
the  supremacy,  the  idea  of  the  Church  began  to  disappear  and 
be  lost  and  swallowed  up  in  that  of  the  Papacy,  so  that  now 
the  Pope  is  all  in  all ;  and  at  the  reaction  that  began  to  prevail 
during  the  Reformation,  the  idea  came  into  vogue  that  Church 
authority  was  little  or  nothing,  and  doctrine  was  the  one  essen- 
tial thing,  and  the  individual  became  the  all  in  all,  each  one 
for  himself. 

There  remain  three  topics  on  which  it  seems  desirable  to  say 
a  few  words  before  we  close:  (i)  The  Canon,  and  what  is  to 
be  regarded  as  constituting  "  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  "  (2)  In 
what  sense  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  inspired,  or  "  the  revealed 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Unity.     209 

Word  of  God  ;  "  and  (3)  In  what  way  and  by  what  rul'.,s  (;f  inter- 
pretation they  are  to  be  expounded  and  insisted  upon  in  proving 
doctrines,  or  in  teaching  the  way  and  the  duties  of  a  holy  hfe. 

We  have  seen,  as  has  been  well  said  in  the  vigorous  words 
of  l)ishop  Temple,  the  present  Bishop  of  London,  that  "  it 
must  always  be  remembered  that  although  the  Bible  is  a  good 
text-book  of  religious  instruction,  our  LoRU  did  not  first  have 
the  Bible  written,  and  then  send  forth  His  Apostles  t(j  lecture 
upon  it.  He  first  sent  them  forth,  and  then  supplied  them  with 
the  New  Testament,  as  the  great  instrument  by  which  they  were 
to  convert  the  world ;  the  Church  which  He  created  was  the 
agent  for  using  that  instrument." 

I  have  said  something  of  a  slight  diversity  of  opinion  among 
the  early  Christians  with  regard  to  a  few  of  the  books  that  we 
now  receive  ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  our  Bishops  intended 
to  preclude  discussion  of  these  subjects  or  a  diversity  of  opinion 
concerning  them. 

Yet  even  now,  as  in  early  times,  nearly  every  dissenter 
from  the  Church  professes  to  disregard  and  reject  some  of  the 
books  that  are  generally  received.  Luther  despised  the  Epis- 
tle of  S.  James.  Calvin  had  his  preferences  and  partialities. 
And  as  Reuss  {^History  of  tJie  Canon,  c.  xvi.]  and  Westcott  {^The 
Bible  in  the  Church,  c.  x.]  have  shown,  there  has  been  scarcely  a 
new  sect  founded,  or  the  founder  of  a  new  sect,  that  did  not 
either  invent  some  new  Scriptures,  or  find  reasons  for  rejecting 
some  parts  of  those  that  the  Church  held. 

Our  Declaration  says,  "  the  revealed  Word  of  GOD ;  "  that 
is,  a  revelation  from  GOD. 

In  what  sense  a  revelation  ?  We  often  use  the  words  "  inspi- 
ration "  and  "  revelation  "  in  a  subordinate  sense,  as  in  fact  im- 
plying thoughts  and  truths  which  are  not  regarded  as  from  GOD, 
in  any  special  sense,  —  in  any  sense,  in  fact,  higher  and  more 
especial  than  that  in  w^iich  all  truth  is  regarded  as  from  Him. 
In  this  view  there  is  no  real  distinction  between  discovery  and 
revelation, — between  the  truths  that  are  discovered  whether  by 
explorations  into  the  records  of  the  past,  or  by  penetration  into 
the  nature  and  relations  of  the  facts  of  the  present  order  and 
course  of  Nature. 

But  I  think  the  Church  means  to  be  understood  as  holding, 
and  intends  to  adhere  to  and  enforce,  a  higher  sense  than  this ; 
for  in  this  sense  all  religions  are  based  on  revelations,  and  given 

14 


2IO  The  Church  Review, 

by  inspiration.  But  I  think  that  our  Church  intends  something 
more :  thus,  if  the  account  which  Moses  gives  of  the  several 
stages  of  creation  be  true,  and  in  accordance  with  facts,  it  must 
have  been  given  by  a  higher  inspiration,  —  for  there  was  no 
human  being  present  to  see  them,  and  it  had  not  been  discov- 
ered at  that  time  by  men  of  science.  The  expression  is  **  the 
revealed  Word  of  God."  So  in  our  Constitution  no  one  can 
be  ordained  in  our  Branch  of  the  Anglican  Communion  with- 
out making  in  the  most  solemn  manner  a  declaration  that  he 
*'  believes  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
to  be  the  Word  of  GOD." 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  expression  in  both  cases  is  in  the 
singular  number,  —  "the  Word  of  GOD,"  not  *' the  Words  of 
God,"  as  if  it  were  intended  to  indicate  and  teach  a  doctrine  of 
plenary  inspiration.  The  men  who  wrote  the  books  were  in- 
spired to  write  and  say  just  what  GOD  for  the  occasion  would 
have  them  to  say.  And  I  think  that  we  must  be  on  our  guard 
against  a  very  prevalent  opinion,  —  that  because  these  men  were 
inspired  and  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
therefore  what  they  said  must  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the 
Englishman's  oath,  "  The  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing 
but  the  truth."  Of  course  I  do  not  mean  to  say  or  to  imply 
that  anything  that  is  thus  said  when  rightly  understood  —  that 
is,  when  understood  as  they  understood  it  and  intended  it  should 
be  understood  —  is  untrue.  But  what  I  mean  to  say  is  that  GOD 
left  them,  for  the  most  part,  to  express  what  was  really  His 
truth  in  their  own  way,  and  as  best  suited  their  personal 
usages  and  tastes,  and  was  best  calculated  to  produce  the 
effect  that  was  intended  on  the  people  of  the  time. 

Nearly  all  the  language  and  forms  of  expression  w^e  use  have 
grown  out  of  past  theories,  many  of  which  are  no  longer  held. 
We  do  not  suppose  that  a  man  denies  the  Copernican  theory 
because  he  uses  the  expression,  "  the  sun  rises." 

The  fact  that  a  man  uses  words  that  imply  a  theory  of  things 
is  no  certain  proof  that  he  holds  that  theory  unless  he  so  uses 
his  words  as  to  show  that  he  intended  to  affirm  it.  This  would 
seem  to  be  the  only  safe  rule. 

In  discussing  and  criticising  the  statements  of  others,  it  is  but 
fair  anc  candid  —  doing  by  others  as  we  would  like  to  be  done 
by  —  to  suppose  that  they  knew  what  they  were  talking  about 
and  understood  the  facts  which  they  undertook  to  assert. 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Ciiiirch  Unity. 


2  I  I 


Thus,  when  a  man  is  professedly  teaehln^  astronomy,  it  is  hut 
fair  to  take  liis  wofds  hterally  in  reference  to  the  point  directly 
before  him,  and  to  suppose  he  intended  to  teach,  and  ascribe  t(j 
him  the  views,  that  his  words  imply  or  exj)ress  when  taken  liter- 
ally. And  so  with  every  other  subject;  but  in  discussing  or 
speaking  of  any  subject  a  man  must  of  necessity  use  the  lan- 
guage of  his  time,  and  such  as  is  understood  or  will  be  best 
understood  by  those  for  whom  it  was  intended.  And  of  course 
the  subject  will  sometimes  be  one  that  is  beyond  their  com- 
prehension ;  then,  of  course,  he  must  resort  to  parable,  figures 
of  speech,  and  similes,  such  as  will  in  his  judgment  best  effect 
the  purpose  he  had  before  him. 

Hence  it  is  very  often  the  case  in  dispute  that  both  parties 
are  right  if  they  will  only  understand  each  other.  Moses  said, 
**  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  and  specifies  the 
successive  stages.  Modern  scientists  have  discovered  that  this 
was  really  the  order  and  the  successive  stages ;  and  they  call  it 
evolution.  Well,  they  may  both  of  them  be  right.  There  could 
hardly  be  creation  without  a  method,  and  w^ith  successive  stages 
and  progress;  nor  can  there  be  evolution  without  something 
to  work  upon,  and  something  or  somebody  —  a  person  —  to 
work  upon  it.  Evolution  may  be  only  GOD's  way  and  method 
in  creation. 

It  has  been  said  of  one  of  the  wags  of  our  day  that  he  once 
remarked  that  he  would  not  give  **  five  cents  to  know  what 
Ingersoll  thinks  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses,  but  he  would  give 
many  dollars  to  know  what  Moses  thinks  of  the  mistakes  of 
Ingersoll." 

Now,  as  Moses  w^as  one  of  the  meekest  of  men,  we  may 
imagine  him  saying,  "  My  friend,  I  expected  wiser  and  more 
considerate  and  candid  men  to  study  and  interpret  my  writings. 
You  do  not  seem  to  have  the  slightest  idea  of  what  I  was  writing 
about,  or  what  I  was  trying  to  accomplish.  Put  yourself  in  my 
place,  and  you  would  say  about  what  I  did,  and  perhaps  a  good 
deal  better." 

We  have,  then,  these  three:  (i)  The  Church  with  its  ministry; 
(2)  The  Holy  Scriptures;  (3)  The  godly  life.  Of  the  three 
the  Church  was  first  in  the  order  of  time.  But  the  last,  personal 
holiness,  is  first  in  the  order  of  importance,  and  that  for  which 
the  other  two  were  instituted.  Man  needs  light  and  guidance; 
and  somewhere  along  in  the  course  of  his  life  there  must  come 


212  The  Church  Review. 

the  element  of  faith,  docility,— the  walking  by  faith  under  the 
guidance  of  those  who  have  the  right  to  teach  and  guide  him, 

if  he  is  ever  to  rise  above  the  mere  natural  life  which  ends  and 

ever  must  end  in  spiritual  death,  the  eternal  death  of  the  soul. 

The  word  ''  Church  "  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  three 
ways  :  (  i )  In  the  singular,  to  denote  the  one  Body  that  our  LORD 
founded,  as  in  Matt.  xvi.  i6,  "  I  will  build  my  Church  ;  "  S.  Paul, 
when  he  speaks  of  the  Church  as  the  Body  of  Christ  (or  of 
Christians)  or  "  the  Pillar  and  Ground  of  the  Truth  "  [Eph.i.  23  ; 
Col.  i.  24;  I  Tim.  iii.  15];  (2)  When  it  denotes  the  body  of 
baptized  believers  or  disciples  in  any  one  city  or  locality,  as  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem,  the  Church  at  Antioch,  etc. ;  (3)  In  the 
plural,  when  it  is  always  accompanied  by  some  geographical  des- 
ignation denoting  not  now  a  city  or  any  one  community,  but  a 
province,  which,  like  the  States  of  our  Union,  had  many  cities ; 
as  the  Churches  of  Judea,  the  Churches  of  Samaria,  the  Churches 
of  Galilee,  the  Churches  of  Asia,  etc. 

But  the  idea  of  many  Churches,  or  bodies  of  recognized  be- 
lievers, in  the  same  city  or  community,  never  occurs.  And  in 
fact,  the  existence  of  such  a  state  of  things  is  precluded  by  the 
way  in  which  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  speak  of:  (i)  Heresy 
[i  Cor.  xi.  19;  Tit.  iii.  lo];  (2)  Schisms  [i  Cor.  i.  lO-iii.  4] 
or  divisions  among  Christians,  who,  though  in  a  state  of  insubor- 
dination, were  still  in  the  Church  as  its  recognized  members ; 
(3)  Those  who  had  seceded,  "  gone  out,"  from  the  Church,  and 
yet  claimed  to  be  Christians  with  a  rule  or  standard  of  Faith  of 
their  own,  different  from  that  in  the  Church.  They  were  called 
anti-CHRlST  [i  John  ii.  18,  19].  The  word  "Church"  is  also 
used  to  denote  the  place  or  building  in  which  Christians  met 
for  worship  [Rom.  xvi.   5  ;  Acts  xix.  37]. 

But  when  the  word  is  used  in  the  singular  number  to  denote 
a  body  of  believers,  it  is  used  as  above  described,  (i)  and  (2), 
and  never  otherwise. 

The  parochial  system  as  we  now  have  it  did  not  come  in  until 
later.  When  the  believers  in  any  one  city  became  too  numer- 
ous or  lived  too  far  apart  to  assemble  for  worship  in  one  place, 
they  built  more  places  of  worship,  sometimes  as  many  as  thirty 
or  forty.  But  there  was  always  one  Bishop,  or  chief  pastor,  with 
as  man)'  Elders  and  Deacons  to  assist  him  as  were  necessary  for 
the  work  to  be  done ;  but  for  some  one  or  two  hundred  years 
there  was  no  division  into  organized  parishes,  as  we  have  now 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Uuity.     2  r  3 

in  every  lar;^^e  city  in  all  dcnoniinalions.  The  first  question  to 
be  settled,  then,  would  seem  to  be  not  one  that  relates  to  Church 
organization  or  modes  of  worship,  and  possibly  not  even  to  the 
details  of  doctrine;  but  it  is  rather  the  (question  of  historic  con- 
tinuity, of  Church  identity,  of  visible  connection,  as  a  l^ranch 
with  the  Vine,  the  members  with  the  one  Body. 

Of  these  branches  we  have  unquestionably  four:  (i)  That 
in  the  East,  which  was  early  brought  under  Mahometan 
domination;  (2)  That  in  Russia,  where  Mahometanism  never 
prevailed  ;  (3)  That  in  the  West,  which  was  brought  and  still 
remains  under  the  Papacy;  and  (4)  The  AngHcan  in  England, 
America,  and  the  colonies,  a  part  of  which,  the  English  Church, 
was  once  included  partly  under  the  domination  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  but  threw  off  that  domination  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury at  what  is  called  the  Reformation  ;  the  rest  never  acknowl- 
edged his  chiims. 

The  Churches  in  Africa  and  the  East  were  early  divided  by 
heresies  and  schisms  and  endless  contentions,  until  the  Ma- 
hometan conquest  put  a  stop  to  them.  In  the  West  there  were 
fewer  heresies  and  much  less  speculation,  indeed,  the  rise  of 
the  Papacy  put  a  stop  to  what  there  were,  and  also  served  a 
most  invaluable  purpose  in  preserving  the  Church  and  Chris- 
tianity itself  during  the  Middle  Ages. 

Our  Lord  said  not  only  that  He  would  build  His  Church  on 
the  Faith  in  Him  which  S.  Peter  had  confessed,  but  He  said 
also  that  "  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  it " 
[Matt.  xvi.  18].  Doubtless  this  implies  and  declares  that  the 
Church  should  never  become  extinct;  but  does  it  not  imply 
and  declare  also  that  no  one  soul  that  trusts  to  its  teaching  and 
instructions  is  in  any  danger  of  losing  his  soul?  And  I  think  if 
it  has  an  application  like  this  to  the  individual  believer,  it  must 
be  understood  as  applying  to  each  one  to  his  Church ;  that  is, 
the  city  or  provincial  Church  that  has  jurisdiction  in  the  city  or 
province  where  he  lives. 

The  one  great  central  thought  of  the  Old  Dispensation  was 
the  unity,  the  oneness,  the  oneliness  of  GoD,  —  the  GOD  whom 
the  Jews  were  to  worship,  adore,  and  obey ;  and  the  one  great 
sin  that  they  were  disposed  to,  and  which  for  them  was  the 
parent  of  all  sins,  even  if  it  did  not  in  the  sight  of  God  involve 
them  all  in  its  one  act,  was  the  worship  of  other  gods. 

It  seems   to    have   been  about   as    difficult    under  the   New 


2  14  Tke  Church  Review, 

Dispensation  to  make  people  believe  in  and  understand  the 
oneness  and  the  oneliness  of  the  Church  which  our  LoRD 
founded  to  be,  on  earth,  the  means  of  training  those  that  believe 
in  Him,  while  they  are  living  here,  for  His  Kingdom  above. 

But  just  as  under  the  Old  Dispensation,  so  soon  as  the  idea 
of  the  oneness  of  GOD  had  passed  out  of  mind,  the  idea  of  His 
majesty  and  the  majesty  of  His  law  began  to  fade  until  it  en- 
tirely disappeared,  and  lost  all  its  force  of  restraint  upon  the 
evil  tendencies  of  the  human  heart.  So  if  we  have  diverse 
Churches  in  the  same  community,  no  one  of  them  nor  all  of 
them  together  can  exert  so  much  influence  for  good,  as  if  any  one 
of  them  spoke  with  one  voice,  proclaiming  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  duties  of  the  Christian  life  even  in  the  lowest 
and  worst  forms  in  which  they  ever  have  been  presented. 

Naturally  men  are  disinclined  to  the  restraints  and  discipline 
that  religion  imposes ;  and  when  theologians  begin  to  dispute 
about  any  of  its  doctrines,  men  naturally  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  that  doctrine  is  either  unimportant  or  not  so  clearly 
revealed  as  to  be  obligatory.  And  it  would  seem  that  if  this  is 
to  go  on  under  the  influences  that  are  now  at  work,  we  shall  soon 
come  to  a  stage  in  which  there  will  be  a  denial  of  miracles 
and  of  any  revelation  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  we 
shall  be  left  to  the  mere  truths  of  natural  religion,  calling  them 
Christianity,  a  Christianity  without  CHRIST. 

Nor  can  we  expect  to  stop  here  ;  the  tendency  to  a  philosophy 
which  denies  the  possibility  of  any  knowledge  of  anything 
above  the  mere  facts  and  objects  of  Nature  seems  to  be  pre- 
vailing in  most  influential  quarters.  And  if  this  prevails,  we 
shall  have  mere  agnosticism,  body  without  a  soul,  a  universe 
without  God,  and  a  life  that  is  not  worth  living.  Those  that 
are  naturally  and  by  instinct  inclined  to  be  good  will  observe 
the  principles  of  morality  and  decency  as  a  matter  of  taste  and 
of  choice;  but  those  of  a  difl*erent  natural  constitution,  having 
nothing  to  restrain  them,  no  belief  in  GOD  or  immortality,  will 
abandon  themselves  to  the  base  instincts  and  inclinations  of 
their  bad  natures. 

Men  naturally  ask  why,  if  there  is  but  one  GOD,  He  should 
have  many  Churches  in  the  same  community,  each  teaching  a 
difl"erent  doctrine,  each  with  a  difl"erent  mode  of  worship  and 
diff"erent  mode  of  hfe  as  the  way  of  gaining  His  favor;  and 
the  question  is  pertinent  and  forcible.     It  is  sometimes  said  that 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  CInirch  Unily.    2 1  5 

the  object   is   to   have  doctrines  and  worship  to  suit  the  various 
tastes  and  characters  of  the  different  kinds  of  people. 

But  Christianity,  though  in  a  most  important  sense  adapted 
to  the  wants  and  needs  of  man,  was  not  intended  to  be  adapted 
to  his  pleasures  and  preferences;  it  was  rather  intended  to  work 
a  change  in  him,  change  his  tastes  and  his  habits  so  that  instead 
of  pleasing  himself,  he  should  come  to  love  that  which  pleases 
God,  —  in  short,  to  regenerate  him  and  make  him  fit  for  and 
able  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  and  delights  of  heaven. 

The  great  mass  of  men  continue  through  life  to  be  pretty 
much  what  they  were  brought  up  to  be.  Nor  is  this  all. 
Everybody,  I  suppose,  will  assent  to  the  notion  that  of  all  the 
ideas  and  influences  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  on  the  youthful 
mind  during  all  the  days  of  its  early  training,  and  while  it  is 
adopting  its  principles  and  forming  the  habits  which  are  to  be  its 
character  in  after-life,  there  is  no  one  so  powerful  as  the  idea  of 
an  Overruling  and  AU-Powerful  Being  who  loves  righteousness 
and  will  reward  those  that  love  and  obey  Him;  this  with  the 
corresponding  idea  of  one  Perfect  Man,  His  only  Sox,  whom  He 
has  sent  into  the  world  to  be  our  pattern  and  the  example  for 
our  imitation,  is  of  all  others  the  most  powerful  and  effective. 

And  if  the  progress  of  science  and  the  results  of  observation 
and  experience  have  taught  us  any  one  thing,  it  is  the  fact  that 
all  men,  and  especially  while  they  are  children,  must  have  the 
stimulus  of  some  motive  that  is  higher  and  more  powerful  than 
any  understanding,  foresight,  or  appreciation  of  the  natural 
consequence  of  their  acts  of  which  they  are  now  capable,  if  they 
are  to  lead  lives  that  are  much  above  their  natural  instincts. 

The  first  question,  then,  is.  Who  are  they  that  *'  sit  in  Moses' 
seat,"  and  whose  teachings  we  are  to  follow?  It  is  written  also, 
and  for  Christians,  after  the  full  establishment  of  the  Church, 
''  Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have 
spoken  unto  you  the  Word  of  GOD :  whose  faith  follow.  .  .  . 
Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  .  .  .  submit  yourselves  : 
for  they  watch  for  your  souls"  [Heb.  xiii.  7,  17]. 

As  we  have  seen  and  said,  the  Romanists  make  the  Bible 
not  only  subordinate  to  the  Church,  and  to  their  special  branch 
of  the  Church,  but  also  to  the  one  man  who  is  recognized  as 
the  head  of  that  Church, —the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Hence  they 
are  not  inclined  to  encourage,  or  even  to  allow,  the  free  use  of 
the  Bible  by  their  own  people,  —  by  the  very  class  of  people  to 


2i6  The  Church  Review, 

whom  and  for  whom,  as  we  have  seen,  the  s-everal  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  with  very  few  exceptions,  were  written. 

In  the  extreme  Protestant  view,  on  the  other  hand,  whatever 
may  be  held  or  inculcated  in  theory,  the  Bible  comes  to  be 
re^^arded,  in  fact  and  in  practical  results,  as  plenarily  inspired ; 
that  is,  all  that  is  received  as  part  of  the  Word  of  GOD,  and 
inspired  at  all,  is  regarded  for  all  practical  results  as  being  not 
only  the  very  words  of  GoD,  but  each  sentence  by  itself  as  the 
whole  truth  that  relates  to  that  subject.  Hence  each  one  fixes 
upon  some  favorite  passage  or  text,  and  insists  upon  that  as  the 
truth  and  the  whole  truth,  and  makes  all  the  other  parts  of  the 
Scriptures  that  he  accepts,  or  has  ever  read,  conform  to  that 
one.  Hence  we  have  Baptists,  Calvinists,  Methodists,  Unitarians, 
Universalists,  etc.,  according  as  these  students  of  the  Bible 
fix  upon  one  or  another  text  and  make  this  central  or  control- 
ling fact  or  text  as  the  foundation  and  controlling  element  of  the 
system  of  theology  or  the  Church  they  adopt. 

From  these  considerations  it  would  appear  that  tf  we  are  to 
have  a  Church  unity,  on  the  basis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the 
revealed  Word  of  GOD,  we  must  also  have  a  Church  that,  in 
teaching  the  people,  will  take  care  to  rightly  "  divide  the  Word 
of  Truth,"  giving  to  each  one  a  portion  in  due  season.  And 
here  comes  in  the  fact  and  the  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures;  this  was  the  Jewish  law.  "To  the  Law 
and  to  the  Testimony"  [Isa.  viii.  20].  Not  even  a  Prophet, 
though  he  could  perform  miracles,  was  expected  or  allowed  to 
teach  anything  contrary  to  the  law  as  given  by  Moses.  And 
so  with  the  early  Christians.  They  had  no  thought  that  the 
Church  could  teach  anything  that  was  contrary  to  the  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  writers  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves  never  seem  to  contemplate  or 
anticipate  the  fact  that  any  of  the  duly  authorized  ministry  in 
any  province  or  nation  can  so  far  depart  from  that  Faith  in  their 
teachings  as  to  endanger  the  souls  of  those  that  are  duly  subject 
to  them,  or  to  justify  us  in  rejecting  them  or  departing  from 
their  ministrations. 

From  this  it  would  appear  that  it  is  as  important  at  least,  if 
not  more  so,  that  we  should  in  the  first  place  ascertain  and  know 
who  it  is  that  has  the  right  to  teach  us  —  who  sit  in  Moses' 
seat — as  it  is  to  know  what  they  teach.  And  yet  there  is 
doubtless  a  *'  form   of  sound  words,"   a  "  faith  once  delivered 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Uuity.     2  i  7 

to   the   saints,"  to   which   wc  arc  to  "  hold  fast,"   whatever  any 
man   or  Church   may  teach. 

I  think  we  must  admit  that  each  of  the  great  denominations 
around  us  arose  from  the  fact  and  to  remedy  an  evil,  tliat 
some  one  of  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity  whicli  the 
Church  ought  to  have  taught  was  not  held  forth  and  pre- 
sented as  it  ought  to  have  been  by  the  Church  and  the 
clergy  of  the  day  and  of  the  country  when  and  where  it 
arose.  On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
adherents  of  the  Papacy,  in  our  country  at  least,  do  insist 
upon  certain  points  of  order  and  discipline  which  are  con- 
ducive to  that  "obedience  to  the  Faith "  of  which  the  Holy 
Scriptures  speak,  and  are,  for  many  persons  at  least,  a  part 
of,  if  not  necessary  to,  that  preparation  for  heaven  which  the 
Church  itself  was  instituted  to  promote.  And  not  only  so, 
but  each  of  the  great  denominations  around  us  reaches  and 
gets  hold  of  and  brings  under  some  measure  and  kind  of  re- 
Hgious  influence  many  persons,  which  is  for  the  persons  thus 
reached,  and  for  the  community  at  large,  what  neither  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  nor  any  of  the  denominations, 
could  in  the  present  state  of  things  reach.  These  denomina- 
tions, each  and  all  of  them,  appeal  to  and  develop,  however 
imperfectly,  the  religious  sentiment.  They  do  also  inculcate  a 
higher  idea  of  morality  than  would  otherwise  prevail.  To  this 
remark  I  make  no  exceptions,  —  not  even  of  the  most  widely 
diverse  religionists  among  us.  And  that  is  really  the  substance 
and  the  ground  of  our  hope.  These  denominations  do  all  of 
them  reach  a  portion  of  the  people  that  probably  would  not  be 
brought  under  any  religious  influence  if  the  denominations 
were  not  so  many  and  so  diverse.  They  do  all  develop  and 
cultivate  the  religious  sentiment,  and  they  do  all  teach  people 
to  look  up  and  forward  to  something  higher  than  this  world,  — 
something  holier  than  self  to  live  for. 

But  more  than  this  we  need  not  acknowledgment  and  pro- 
fession only,  we  need  worship  also,  —  public  worship,  —  to 
educate  the  religious  sentiment  and  the  fear  of  GOD.  And  to 
accomplish  its  end  this  worship  must  be  adapted  to  the  wants 
and  conditions  of  the  people,  each  nation,  age,  and  era  by  itself, 
and  doubtless  different  in  some  respects  in  all  of  them. 

It  would  appear  also  that  not  only  the  fact,  but  also  the  char- 
acter of  the  public  worship  is  of  great  importance.     Perhaps  the 


2i8  The  Church  Review. 

character  and  mode  of  worship  does  quite  as  much  toward  form- 
ing the  character  of  the  people  as  the  doctrinal  teaching.  I  think 
we  can  see  this  in  the  difference  among  the  members  of  the  dif- 
ferent denominations  around  us. 

But  who  shall  prescribe  the  form  of  worship  ?  It  is  not  fully 
described  in  the  New  Testament  any  more  than  the  mode  and 
form  of  the  organization  of  the  Church,  and  apparently  for 
the  same  reason.  We  do,  however,  find  the  Apostles  giving 
directions  about  the  worship,  and  giving  authority  to  others,  as 
Timothy  and  Titus,  to  regulate  it  for  the   people. 

But  on  what  terms  shall  we  unite?  Will  the  Romanists  con- 
sent to  restore  the  "  Historic  Episcopate  "  to  its  original  dignity 
and  independence  of  Papal  control?  Will  the  Protestants  con- 
sent to  have  Bishops  exercising  the  control  over  tlieir  people, 
including  their  Elders  and  Deacons,  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
exercised,  one  at  Ephesus  and  the  other  at  Crete?  Shall  we 
concede  to  either  of  them  what  our  forefathers  did  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  concede?  Will  they,  as  organized  bodies,  abandon 
and  renounce  the  points  for  which  their  forefathers  seceded 
and  went  into  a  state  of  schismatic  insubordination  or  anti- 
Christian  opposition? 

But  I  fear  that  we  shall  have  no  real  Church  unity  until  views 
of  the  Christian  life  itself  come  to  be  entertained  quite  different 
from  those  that  we  see  now  prevailing  around  us.  It  is  not  the 
Scriptures  only,  nor  yet  the  Church  only,  with  regard  to  which 
such  widely  different  views  as  we  have  been  considering  are 
entertained  by  the  members  of  the  various  sects  and  denomina- 
tions that  are  found  in  our  country.  But  their  views  of  what 
constitutes  piety  —  the  real  Christian  life  —  are  quite  as  widely 
variant  as  their  views  on  either  of  the  other  subjects.  No  two 
of  them  agree  or  speak  in  the  same  terms  on  that  most  impor- 
tant subject. 

The  one  essential  thing  in  the  truly  religious  and  godly  life  is 
doubtless  the  doing  or  intending  to  do  the  will  of  GOD.  Genu- 
ine conversion  for  the  natural  man  is  the  turning  from  doing 
our  own  will  and  pleasure  to  the  habitual  doing  of  the  will  of 
God.  Mistakes,  in  fact,  are  easily  overlooked  by  man,  and  as 
we  may  believe,  by  GOD,  the  Final  Judge,  also.  But  if  a  man 
does  net  tr}^  or  care  to  ascertain  and  do  the  will  of  GOD,  he  is 
none  of  His;  he  has  not  the  root  of  the  matter  in  him.  What- 
ever he  may  do  for  the  sake  of  outward  appearance  is  but  shal- 


Holy  Scriptures  as  the  Basis  of  Church  Unity,    o  1 9 

low,  pcrhai).s  only  mere  hypocrisy  and  false  pretence.  Ikit  iXo'wv^ 
the  will  of  God,  even  when  it  implies  self-denial,  and  especially 
when  it  implies  self-denial,  is  the  essential  thin^^^ 

"  Obedient  to  the  Faith."  These  seem  to  be  the  words  that 
are  used  in  Holy  Scripture  to  characterize  the  Christian  life. 
S.  Luke  uses  them  in  speaking  of  the  converts  from  among  the 
Jews  [Acts  vi.  7] ;  S.  Paul  uses  them  to  characterize  his  work 
'•  among  all  nations  "  [Rom.  i.  5  ;  xvi.  26].  The  Romanists,  on 
the  one  hand,  insist  on  the  first  element,  —  **  obedience,"  —  and 
subject  all  to  the  l^ishop  of  Rome;  the  extreme  Protestants,  on 
the  other  hand,  rejecting  Church  authority,  insist  on  the  second 
element,  —  "  the  P'^aith."  But  for  any  substantial  or  permanent 
and  harmonious  unity,  we  must  have  the  two  united,  —  *'  Obe- 
dience to  the  Faith,"  —  as,  each  in  its  due  proportion,  what  GoD 
has  united,  and  no  man  hath  any  right  to  put  asunder. 

The  first  sin  and  the  beginning  of  all  sin  on  earth  was  an  act 
of  disobedience.  Our  first  parents  lacked  faith.  They  did  not 
believe  that  GOD  meant  what  He  said  and  would  do  what  He 
had  threatened.  When  He  warned  them  against  eating  the  for- 
bidden fruit,  they  thought  that  they  would  be  much  wiser  and 
happier  for  having  their  way.  And  with  the  end  of  disobedience 
and  a  hearty  and  entire  return  to  "  the  obedience  to  the  P^aith," 
we  shall  see  what  S.  Paul  predicted  as  the  final  end  and  aim  of 
the  Incarnation,  the  establishing  of  the  Church  and  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel ;  namely,  **  Then  cometh  the  end,  wdien  He  shall 
have  put  all  enemies  under  His  feet,  and  He  shall  have  de- 
livered up  the  kingdom  to  GOD ;  even  the  Father,  and  GOD 
will  be  all  in  all"  [i  Cor.  xv.  24-29].  Then  right  and  right- 
eousness will   everywhere  prevail. 

But  whatever  we  may  do  and  whatever  may  come,  we  must 
see  to  it  that  we  unite  on  Church  grounds;  that  in  any  union 
or  confederation  with  others,  we  bring  them  into  the  Church, 
and  not  cast  ourselves  out  of  it;  that  we  bring  them  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  **  Historic  Episcopate,"  and  not,  leaving 
that,  invent  one  of  our  own,  forsaking  and  forfeiting  all  possi- 
bility of  recognition  by  those  branches  of  the  Church  which 
are  unquestionably  of  Apostolic  origin,  and  which,  whatever 
they  may  have  lost  or  invented,  have  retained  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, the  Creeds,  and  the  Sacraments,  and  have  also  preserved 
in  its  unbroken  succession  the  one  "  Historic  Episcopate." 

\V.  D.  Wilson. 


^^Cl^t  fait])  'w))ic])  toasi  once  for  all 
?©clitiercD/' 

Joseph  F.  Garrison,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Liturgics  and 
Canon  Law  in  the  Philadelphia  Divinitv  School. 

FOR  more  than  a  thousand  years  the  external  unity  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  has  been  broken  up. 

Temporary  ruptures  between  the  East  and  West  had  occurred 
at  times  from  a  very  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
but  finally  their  disputes  became  so  bitter  that  they  separated 
entirely.  Intercommunion  between  them  ceased.  Each  toler- 
ated only  its  own  adherents ;  and  so  far  as  organic  or  visible 
unity  is  concerned,  the  Greek,  or  Eastern,  and  the  Western,  or 
Latin,  Communions  have  remained  disunited  to  the  present  day. 

At  the  Reformation  in  the  sixteenth  century  divisions  arose  in 
the  Church  in  the  West.  Its  differing  portions  became  separated 
from  each  other,  and  numerous  breaks  were  thus  made  in  "  the 
corporate  unity"  of  this  part  of  Christendom. 

Upon  the  continent,  besides  the  Romanists,  who  still  retained 
their  allegiance  to  the  Papal  throne,  there  were  the  Lutheran 
communities  of  Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Norway. 
Some  of  these  preserved  the  Episcopate,  as  they  claim,  in  a 
perfectly  valid  and  historic  form  ;  while  with  others  this  was 
lacking,  apparently  rather  from  circumstances  than  any  spe- 
cial desire  to  have  it  so. 

Scotland  and  Holland  had  in  like  manner  assumed  inde- 
pendent positions,  and  had  adopted  for  their  national  Churches 
the  mode  of  organization  favored  by  Calvin,  —  a  system  main- 
tained also  by  the  heroic  Huguenots  of  France,  and  the  republic 
of  Geneva;  while  the  Church  of  England,  although  it  also  was 
separated  from  external  communion  with  Rome,  had  yet  care- 
fully retained  in  their  integrity  all  the  elements  which  the  Church 
of  the  Apostles  had  regarded  as  essential,  in  either  its  Faith  or 
its  organization. 

But  these  larger  and  historical  divisions  of  "  the  corporate 
unity"  of  the  Church  are  not  the  only  ones  with  which  we  are 


"  The  Faith  zvhich  ivas  once  for  all  Delivered.''    221 

concerned;  there  ha\'e  been,  since  tlie  Reformation,  a  consider- 
able number  of  relii^ious  bodies  separated  from  the  En^Hsh 
Church,  which  are  now  independent  Communions.  Each  of 
these  has  its  own  creed,  ministry,  and  discipHnc,  and  is  organized 
accordinj^  to  the  circumstances  or  convictions  in  wliich  it  had 
its  origin. 

Among  the  more  prominent  of  these  arc  the  Presbyterians, 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Congregationahsts,  and  others  with  them, 
too  numerous  to  mention;  we  must  take  all  these  into  ac- 
count in  any  scheme  designed  to  promote  the  reunion  of 
Christendom.  The  principles  which  are  to  be  "  the  basis  for 
the  restoration  of  the  corporate  unity  "  of  the  whole  Church, 
must  apply  equally  —  though  in  very  different  ways  —  to  the 
comparatively  recent  separations  of  the  followers  of  George 
Fox  and  John  Wesley,  and  to  the  problem  of  the  ancient  dis- 
union between  the  Churches  of  the  East  and  the  Communion  of 
Rome.  But  though  the  question  of  reunion,  taken  in  its  whole 
extent,  thus  concerns  the  entire  Church,  and  reaches  far  back 
into  its  history,  we  are  called  upon  here,  by  the  terms  of  the 
Lambeth  Encyclical,  to  deal  chiefly  with  the  Christian  bodies 
once  of  our  own  Communion,  but  now  separated  from  us  by 
"  the  unhappy  divisions "  which  so  sorrowfully  rend  and 
weaken  our  Protestant  Christianity. 

These  should  certainly  have  the  first  place  in  our  interest 
and  affection.  Their  founders  were  in  most  cases  members, 
in  some  ministers,  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  separa- 
tion of  some  of  them  from  that  Church  might  have  been 
easily  prevented  by  a  larger  measure  of  wisdom  and  charity 
on  the  part  of  its  authorities.  They  have  now  grown  to  vast 
institutions  which  are  daily  preaching  the  Gospel  to  mukitudes, 
and  showing  "  by  their  fruits  "  that  the  spirit  of  the  MASTER 
is  with  them  in  much  they  do. 

No  one  having  in  him  the  true  spirit  of  CHRIST  can  read  the 
reports  of  the  immense  work  for  good,  "  casting  out  devils  in 
the  name  of  Chrlst,"  wrought  by  the  great  Protestant  Churches, 
without  thanks  to  GOD  that  such  Divine  work,  and  so  blessed, 
is  being  done, — even  though  it  be  by  those  who  in  certain 
things  "follow  not  us"  [Mark  ix.  38],  or  without  a  corre- 
sponding sense  of  loss  and  grief  that  we  cannot  join  hand 
in  hand  with  them  in  every  element  of  Church  activity,  and 
manifest   that   we    are    brethren,    not    only    in    that    **  unity  of 


222  The  Church  Review, 

the  spirit"  which  binds  us  all  to  CHRIST,  but  also  in  the 
offices  of  that  ministry  which  was  given  to  the  Church 
**  once  for  all  "  by  its  founders,  and  which,  with  its  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, its  Faith,  and  Sacraments,  it  was  charged  to  hand  down 
to  the  end  oS.  the  ages. 

It  was  especially  our  relations  with  these  divisions  from  our 
branch  of  the  Church,  and  a  deep  conviction  of  the  evils  of 
their  continuance,  that  led  the  Bishops  in  the  General  Con- 
vention, and  in  the  Lambeth  Conference,  to  prepare  and  is- 
sue their  earnest  appeals  upon  the  subject  of  Church  unity 
and  to  state  the  conditions  which  they  deemed  essential  to  any 
basis  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom. 

It  is  with  the  general  principles  involved  in  these  proposi- 
tions, and  some  practical  thoughts  on  the  course  of  the 
Church  in  this  matter,  that  the  following  paper  will  chiefly 
be  occupied. 

The  word  "  reunion"  expresses,  in  my  mind,  the  real  essence 
of  the  whole  movement.  It  indicates,  in  its  simple  meaning,  a 
return  of  some  kind  and  in  some  way  to  "  a  unity  "  which  had 
once  existed,  but  at  present  is  interrupted.  The  original  unity 
of  Christendom  was  the  Church  as  established  primarily  on  prin- 
ciples derived  from  the  Apostles,  and  agreeing  in  all  its  parts  in 
certain  essential  elements ;  namely,  the  one  Faith,  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  Sacraments  of  Christ,  the  Orders  of  the  Min- 
istry, and  the  means  for  its  continuance  and  government;  and 
where  there  have  been  divisions  which  rejected  or  perverted 
any  of  these,  the  only  way  to  a  true  reunion  is  by  a  return 
to,  and  acceptance  again,  of  all  the  principles  which  were 
regarded  as  essential  to  the  original  unity. 

This  conformity  to  the  essential  elements  of  the  primitive 
Church  as  the  only  basis  for  Christian  reunion  is  not  the  device 
or  invention  of  any  branch  of  the  Church  of  to-day,  nor  w^as  it 
struck  out  by  any  Convention  of  Bishops  as  a  plausible  theory 
to  commend  the  Episcopate ;  upon  the  contrary,  the  principle 
on  which  it  rests — -the  assumption  that  the  great  outlines  of 
Church  faith  and  Church  order  were  to  be  preserved  in  their 
substance  through  all  after-time  —  pervades  all  the  writings  of 
the  antc-Nicene  period,  and  is  in  strict  accord  with  all  that 
the  New  Testament  teaches  of  the  nature  and  continuance  of 
the  Church. 

Many  scout  at  all  such  obligations,  on  the  ground  that  CHRIST 


The  Faith  which  ivas  once  for  all  Delivei^cciy     -'-> 


-- J 


gave  no  coniniaiul  as  to  any  mode  of  the  orf;anization  or  trans- 
mission of  tlie  Church.  Neither,  however,  did  lie  give  any  com- 
mand that  the  four  Gospels  should  be  written,  nor  do  these 
Gospels  declare  by  whom,  or  when,  or  under  what  authority 
they  were  composed;  the  chief  external  evidence  on  which 
we  receive  them  is  that  they  form  an  integral  part  u{  the  con- 
stitution of  the  primitive  Church.  Hence  we  beheve  that  the 
Faith,  Sacraments,  and  Orders  which  were  also  accepted  by  this 
Church  as  essential  in  its  organization,  were  likewise  to  be  pre- 
served in  their  principles  through  all  the  after-history  of  the 
Church. 

It  is  contended  by  some  that  the  conditions  of  the  primitive 
Church  cannot  be  reproduced  in  our  day,  hence  that  it  is  absurd 
to  imagine  that  these  principles  of  the  Apostolic  age  can  be 
applied  in  the  Church  of  the  present  time.  It  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  the  needs  of  the  changing  centuries  require  corre- 
sponding modifications  in  the  workings  of  every  institution,  the 
Church  among  the  rest;  the  modes  of  interpreting  even  arti- 
cles of  the  Creed  will  vary;  the  "Historic  Episcopate"  must 
"  be  adapted  in  its  administration  "  to  the  changed  conditions  of 
different  times  and  peoples.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  there  will  be  any  period  when  the  principles  which 
were  deemed  fundamental  in  all  the  early  centuries  of  the 
Church  should  not  be  held  equally  so  in  every  succeeding 
age  of  that  same  Church.  Nay,  more,  if  the  Church  be,  as 
we  hold,  a  Divine  institution,  it  is  eminently  rational  that  the 
Faith,  Sacraments,  Holy  Scriptures,  and  Ministerial  Orders 
which  were  regarded  as  essential  from  its  beginning,  should  have 
been  given  to  it  "  once  for  all,"  and  should  therefore  be  re- 
tained  as   living  elements  in  all  the  future  of  the  Church. 

It  is  just  these  fundamental  elements  of  the  Church  of  the 
Apostolic  ages  which  the  Bishops  set  forth  as  a  basis  for  the 
reunion  of  Christendom. 

This  was  not  issued  as  a  sort  of  Protocol  for  future  negotia- 
tion, but  as  a  clear  and  definite  statement  by  the  Bishops  of  the 
great  Anglican  Communion  that  the  only  and  true  basis  for  a 
restoration  of  the  unity  of  all  the  parts  of  the  Church,  whether 
Greek,  Roman,  Anglican,  or  Protestant,  is  the  acceptance  by  all 
alike  of  the  principles  on  which  the  Church  was  originally 
founded,  and  their  adoption,  unperverted  and  unmutilated,  as 
the   necessary  conditions   of   reunion   of   the   Churches  in  the 


2  24  T-he  Church  Review. 

future.  Nothing  of  vital  import  can  be  added,  nothing  of 
fundamental  value  cast  away. 

The  position  above  taken  implies  that  the  basis  which  is  pro- 
posed must  be  regarded  as  a  whole ;  its  several  parts  are  linked 
together  and  form  a  coherent  system  ;  all  of  them  were  essen- 
tial in  the  Church's  primal  unity;  no  one  of  them  can  be  dis- 
carded from  the  conditions  of  reunion  in  our  day;  and  further 
yet,  when  taken  separately,  and  apart  from  the  living  whole  of 
which  they  are  the  elements,  no  one  of  them  can  by  itself  meet 
the  very  ends  for  which  it  was  intended  in  its  association  with 
the  others. 

Take,  for  example,  the  acceptance  of  the  two  Creeds,  —  the 
Apostles'  and  that  called  the  Nicene  —  as  *'  a  sufficient  statement 
of  the  Christian  Faith." 

In  the  Church  of  the  first  three  hundred  years  the  only  and 
'*  all-sufficient  statement  of  the  Faith  "  was  a  summary  substan- 
tially the  same  in  its  essential  features  as  that  which  has  been 
known  for  centuries  as  *'  The  Apostles'  Creed." 

This  Creed  now  occupies  well-nigh  the  same  position  in  the 
Churches  of  England  and  America  as  the  analogous  but  sim- 
pler form  did  in  the  ante-Nicene  age  ;  in  connection  with  its 
expansion  in  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  it  is  the  only  *'  Confession 
of  Faith  "  w^iich  they  require  from  all  their  members.  The 
Church  does  not  need  to  require   any  more. 

This  is  due  mainly  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Church  the  Creed 
docs  not  stand  alone,  but  is  an  integral  part  of  a  system.  It  is 
an  introduction  to  a  large  and  connected  whole ;  in  this  its 
fitting  place  it  is  associated  with  other  agencies  which  pre- 
sent the  Church's  teaching  on  duties  and  doctrines  that  are 
not  embodied  in  the  Creed,  and  yet  are  necessary  to  the  full 
and  right  development  of  the  Christian  life.  Hence,  as  these 
means  of  supplying  all  the  necessities  of  the  spiritual  life  are 
thus  provided,  the  Church  does  not  need  any  other  obligatory 
standard  of  Faith  than  this  which  has  come  down  to  us  from 
the  earliest  ages. 

While,  however,  the  Creed  is  satisfactory  in  its  place  as  ''  The 
Creed  of  the  Church,"  its  position  is  very  different  when  con- 
sidered as  the  sole  basis  of  unity,  or  the  sole  body  of  doctrine 
for  a  denomination. 

On  the  one  hand,  as  the  denominations  do  not  possess  the 
complete  system  by  which  the  Creeds  are  accompanied  in  the 


"  The  Faith  which  zuas  once  for  all  Delivered^'     225 

Church,  they  fiiul  it  necessary  in  some  way  to  meet  this  want. 
Hence  the  more  thouc^ditful  of  them  embody  their  leading  prin- 
ciples in  "  Confessions,"  which  their  people  often  find  comi)lex 
and  burdensome,  but  which  at  the  same  time  they  feel  it  to 
be  equally  difficult  to  revise  or  to  do  without. 

Upon  the  other  hand,  the  bare  adoption  of  the  Creeds,  with 
no  other  authorized  teaching  on  doctrine  or  on  morals  than  is 
expressed  in  them,  would  be  but  a  slim  safej^uard  against  the 
intrusion  into  the  Church  of  certain  bodies  which  might  profess 
a  formal  symbol  of  belief  and  yet  maintain  opinions  and  allow 
practices  wholly  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  Communi- 
ties such  as  these  are  by  no  means  unknown  phenomena  in  the 
history  of  the  past. 

Hence  the  Creeds,  when  taken  alone,  are  incompetent  to  serve 
as  a  basis  on  which  we  can  ever  build  a  reunited  Christendom. 
What  is  true  in  this  respect  of  the  Creeds  is  likewise  true  of 
the  other  parts  of  the  basis  we  are  discussing,  whether  taken 
singly  or  with  some  portions  only  of  their  number  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  others.  Regarded  in  their  connection,  and  as 
a  whole,  they  form  the  original  conditions  of  the  unity  of  the 
early  Church ;  but  considered  separately,  no  portion  of  them 
without  all  the  others  can  offer  a  practical^  or  even  plausible, 
ground  on  which  a  theory  of  reunion  could  be  reasonably 
based. 

There  have  been  since  the  present  awakening  of  the 
Christian  world  to  the  importance  of  reunion  many  plans 
suggested  for  bringing  about  some  mode  of  mutual  interchange 
of  ministry  without  an  adoption  of  the  original  system  of  the 
Church  as  this  is  embodied  in  the  papers  of  the  Bishops. 

One  of  the  most  popular  of  these  is  that  known  in  general 
as  "  A  Federation  of  the  Churches." 

As  indicated  by  the  term,  the  leading  idea  seems  to  be  to 
establish  some  sort  of  an  arrangement  between  such  of  the 
Christian  denominations  as  may  unite  in  the  agreement  by 
which  each  of  those  in  the  association  shall  preserve  its  own 
"corporate"  existence,  teach  its  own  special  doctrines,  have 
its  own  Creed,  —  excepting  only  in  such  points  as  may  have 
been  adopted  as  the  conditions  of  their  Federation,  —  while 
at  the  same  time  the  ministry  of  each  shall  be  allowed  free 
interchange  in  preaching,  and  in  other  offices  of  the  Church, 
with  all  the  others. 

15 


226  The  Church  Review. 

Apart  from  any  principles  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
Church,  the  practical  difficulties  of  any  such  scheme  would  be 
insuperable. 

How  should  the  basis  of  their  association  be  prepared  ? 
Should  a  consultation  of  certain  denominations  lay  down  the 
conditions  and  ask  the  others  to  adopt  them?  What  reason 
have  we  to  think  that  the  acts  of  any  such  self-constituted  body 
would  be  accepted  by  the  other  parts  of  Christendom?  Can 
any  sane  man  imagine  that  a  universal  conference  of  the  innu- 
merable sects  of  Protestantism  could  be  had,  or,  if  it  should 
be  attempted,  that  it  could  possibly  agree  on  any  terms  which 
would  allow  that  each  should  interchange  its  pulpits  and  its 
Sacraments  with  all  the  others?  And  without  such  universal 
agreement  the  divisions  of  Protestantism,  even  outside  the 
Church,   would  be  no  nearer  a  unity  than  they  ai-e  to-day. 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  the  much-vexed 
question  of  the  refusal  of  the  Church  to  allow  the  ministers 
of  other  denominations  to  preach  in  its  pulpits  or  to  take 
part  in  its  public  offices. 

This  is  not,  as  some  seem  to  think,  an  exhibition  of  the  inso- 
lence of  caste  on  the  part  of  our  clergy  ;  still  less  is  it  an  ex- 
pression of  their  sense  of  individual  merit  or  personal  superiority. 
God  forbid  that  any  one  belonging  to  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  should  have  these  feelings,  or  feelings  in  any  manner 
akin  to  them  !  This  were,  indeed,  not  only  un-Christian,  but  un- 
churchly  and  unwarranted  upon  any  ground.  There  are  num- 
bers in  the  ministry  of  the  Communions  of  which  we  speak,  at 
whose  feet  I  have  willingly  sat  as  an  humble  learner  in  many  of 
the  deep  truths  of  theology  and  the  spiritual  experiences  of  the 
Christian  life ;  the  question  in  no  sense  concerns  the  individual 
members  of  their  ministry,  or  the  personal  excellence  of  the 
men  to  whom  the  work  of  their  ministrations  is  committed. 
The  Church  holds  itself  to  be  "a  witness  and  keeper"  of  the 
fundamental  elements  of  the  Church's  organization  and  order 
as  well  as  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Faith ;  and  when  it 
declares  in  the  Ordinal  that  "  no  man  shall  be  suffered  to  ex- 
ecute any  of  the  functions"  of  the  ministry  "in  this  Church 
except  he  have  had  Episcopal  ordination,"  this  is  simply  an 
application  of  one  of  the  principles  which  was  universally  ac- 
cepted in  the  Church  of  the  Apostles,  and  from  which  no  por- 
tion of  the  historic  Church  has  ever  departed. 


"  The  Faith  ivJiich  ivas  once  for  all  Delivered^     227 

There  is  also  another  consideration  arisintj  from  the  relation 
of  the  Episcopate  to  the  other  elements  of  the  primitive  Church 
that  may  be  noted  here.  The  existence  and  successions  of  Bish- 
ops do  not  stand  alone  in  the  constitution  of  the  primitive 
Church,  any  more  than  its  accepted  Creed.  No  one  of  its 
original  elements  can  be  discarded  from  this  Church  without 
imminent  peril  to  the  preservation  of  the  others. 

The  Episcopate  and  the  requirement  of  Episcopal  ordination, 
like  the  others,  are  integral  parts  of  an  organic  whole ;  the 
same  "  ancient  authors,"  in  the  same  argument,  often  in  the 
same  passage  or  page,  in  which  they  refer  to  the  existence  and 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  will  also  as- 
sert the  Apostolic  origin  and  the  succession  of  the  Bishops  as 
facts  equally  undoubted  and  universal  in  every  portion  of  the 
Church.  If  we  refuse  to  accept  their  testimony,  when  they 
witness  to  facts  so  patent  as  the  connection  of  the  Bishops  with 
the  Church,  or  to  allow  full  weight  to  their  authority  when  they 
assume  "  an  unbroken  line  of  the  Episcopate  "  as  a  reality  which 
no  one  would  question,  can  we  rely  upon  them  as  trustworthy 
evidence  in  the  far  more  difficult  and  subtle  discussions  on  the 
authorship  and  divineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament? 
It  would  prove,  soon  or  late,  a  disastrous  experiment  to  dispar- 
age their  testimony  as  to  the  position  and  character  of  the  Epis- 
copal Order,  and  then  expect  to  have  them  received  as  chief 
witnesses  in  support  of  the  canonicity  of  Holy  Scripture. 

"The  Historic  Episcopate"  is  thus  to  be  accepted,  with  the 
other  principles  of  the  original  form  of  the  Church,  as  one  of 
the  essential  parts  of  that  Church,  and  as  such  it  cannot  be  re- 
jected from  any  proper  basis  of  reunion. 

Whether  there  shall  ever  be  a  reunion  of  Christendom,  or 
how  it  can  be  effected,  lies  only  in  the  mind  of  the  "  All- 
knowing." 

That  the  great  Protestant  Communions  shall,  as  organized 
bodies,  be  willing  to  agree  with  us  on  any  such  basis  as  will 
produce  a  real  or  corporate  union,  is,  in  my  opinion,  most  un- 
likely ever  to  happen.  Both  the  circumstances  of  their  several 
origins,  and  the  position  they  now  occupy,  render  any  such  fu- 
sion in  mass  almost  impossible. 

If  there  should  ever  be  a  return  of  Christendom  to  its  orig- 
inal and  intended  unity-,  it  will  not,  in  all  human  probability, 
come  from  resolutions  or  proceedings  of  any  assembly  or  con- 


228  The  Church  Review. 

ference  or  convention,  but  from  a  wide-spread  conviction  among 
Christian  people  as  to  what  really  constitutes  a  Church,  and 
a  consequent  flowing  of  the  multitudes  into  the  Communion 
which  shall  have  proved  itself  by  its  truth,  spirit,  and  works,  as 
well  as  its  Orders,  to  be  the  true  Church.  Should  the  Church 
which  claims  to  be  Apostolic  ever  thus  win  ''the  hearts  and 
minds  "  of  the  bulk  of  the  Christian  community,  the  unity  of 
Christendom  would  then  be  attained  by  the  gathering  of  its 
people  into  its  one  Church. 

The  practical  interest  of  the  Anglo-American  Church  in  this 
matter  of  reunion  is  chiefly  concerned,  as  we  have  already 
stated,  with  the  position  of  the  various  Protestant  Communions 
among  whom  we  are. 

There  is  a  feeling,  far  too  common,  on  the  part  of  many 
Churchmen,  that  the  fault  of  these  separations  from  the  Church 
of  England  was  all  upon  one  side ;  that  these  organizations  had 
gone  into  schism  without  any  reason,  and  being  in  schism,  had 
but  one  thing  to  do,  —  this  was  to  confess  their  error,  and  re- 
turn at  once  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church. 

But  there  is  a  far  deeper  significance  in  the  origin  and  contin- 
uance of  these  separations  than  can  be  thus  easily  disposed  of  ; 
and  the  Church  can  never  deal  wisely  with  the  questions  now 
presented  to  her  without  realizing  that  there  is  a  philosophy  in 
sectism,  and  a  profound  meaning  in  the  existence  of  sects,  which 
she  is  called  on  to  understand  and  to  apply. 

The  reasons  for  the  separation  of  many  of  the  Dissenters 
from  the  Church  of  England  rest  largely  with  the  Church  it- 
self; and  a  correct  appreciation  of  some  of  these  reasons  may 
furnish  lessons  of  no  slight  importance  to  the  future  of  the 
Church. 

The  source  of  several  of  the  more  important  of  these  divisions 
lay  in  a  condition  of  the  Church  at  the  period  of  their  occur- 
rence by  which  some  great  truth  or  duty  which  belonged  to 
her  had  been  neglected  or  repressed.  Earnest  men,  feeling 
that  their  spiritual  nature  demanded  a  fuller  recognition  of  this 
than  the  Church  would  then  permit,  gathered  themselves  into 
associations  to  supply  this  special  lack.  These  gradually  shaped 
themselves  into  complete  organizations,  which  after  a  time 
became  wholly  independent  Communions,  and  were  entirely 
severed  from  the  Church. 

It  was   an  impulse    of  this  kind  which  resulted  in  the  for- 


*"  The  Faith  which  zuas  once  for  all  Delivevedr     229 

mation  of  the  Quaker  Society,  and  the  estabhshment  of  J(;hn 
Wesley's    Metluxlism. 

In  the  former  case  the  strife  of  parties  had  well-ni^^h  silenced 
the  Church's  voice  on  the  vital  doctrine  of  the  inner  personal 
testimony  of  the  HOLY  SPIRIT  to  the  soul;  and  the  fervid,  though 
often  wild  and  misdirected  zeal  of  George  Fox  embodied  this 
great  truth  in  a  sect  which  called  the  thoughts  of  many  who  had 
no  s)'mpathy  with  his  society  to  realize  their  need  of  a  personal 
communion  with  the  SPIRIT  far  more  vividly  than  they  would 
otherwise  have  done. 

So  again,  had  the  Church  of  England  been  at  all  awake  in  the 
time  of  Wesley  to  the  necessity  of  zealous  preaching  to  the 
poor  and  destitute,  and  of  an  individual  awakening  to  the  need 
of  their  conversion  to  a  Christian  life,  he  would  have  been  able 
to  keep  his  followers  and  converts,  as  he  always  desired  to  do, 
in  the  Comrnunion  of  the  Church;  and  the  Church  would  thus 
at  the  same  time  have  profited  by  his  zeal,  and  have  added 
to  her  numbers  multitudes  who  were  her  rightful  children. 

There  were  also  separations  which  grew  out  of  oppressions 
and  hardships,  —  from  the  harsh  actions  of  Ecclesiastical  Com- 
missions, and  sometimes  the  personal  severity  of  Bishops. 
And  those  who  might  have  been  kept  in  the  Church  by  a 
measure  of  consideration  and  Christian  charity,  upon  the  part 
of  its  authorities,  were  largely  through  these  means  driven  off 
into  new  organizations  that  have  transmitted  to  their  mem- 
bers feelings  of  bitterness  which  long  generations  have  not 
yet  effaced. 

Viewed  in  this  connection  with  their  causes,  the  existence 
of  these  separated  Communions  has  an  intended  meaning  for 
the  Church,  and  one  of  great  practical  significance  in  our  day. 

It  teaches  very  clearly  that  we  should  seek  in  each  of  these 
denominations  what  is  that  feature  or  aspect  of  the  Christian 
life  which  has  been  its  distinguishing  characteristic  and  its 
chief  power  for  good  in  actual  practice,  and  should  endeavor 
ourselves  to  do  that  thing  by  the  Church  more  wisely  and 
more  effectively  than  it  has  been  done  by  its  special  advo- 
cates. Live  more  closely  in  the  communion  of  the  SPIRIT 
than  the  followers  of  Fox.  Be  more  eager  in  the  work  of 
saving  souls  than  even  Wesley  was.  Study  to  be  more 
powerful  in  preaching  than  the  Presbyterians ;  and  so  of  all 
the  rest. 


230  The  Church  Review,  * 

Considered  thus,  the  continuance  and  success  of  these  de- 
nominations are  constant  and  urgent  calls  to  the  Church 
that  it  should  learn  what  there  is  in  each  of  them  that  we 
may  profit  by  and  use  as  a  means  to  aid  us  in  ministering 
through  the  Church  to  these  same  spiritual  needs  of  men. 

There  is  no  one  of  the  causes  that  led  to  these  divisions  that 
may  not  now  be  remedied.  There  is  no  one  of  their  special 
lines  of  Christian  labor  that  we  may  not  carry  on  more  effec- 
tively in  the  Church  than  they  can  do  without  it. 

Here,  in  my  view,  is  a  large  responsibility  resting  on  the 
Church  in  this  matter  of  reunion.  Let  her  in  every  form  of 
Christian  usefulness  show  herself  more  zealous  and  more  ef- 
fective than  any  of  ''the  Churches."  Let  her  make  good  her 
Apostolic  character  by  act  and  spirit,  as  well  as  by  claim 
and  argument,  however  well  grounded  these  may  be.  Let 
her  demonstrate,  by  fulfilling  the  high  duties  laid  upon  her, 
that  there  is  no  need  for  any  other  agency  than  the  Church 
of  Christ  to  do  the  work  of  Christ. 

When  she  presents  in  some  adequate  degree  these  evidences 
that  she  is  entitled  to  be  In  fact,  as  she  is  in  right,  the  centre  of 
the  unity  of  Christendom,  multitudes,  who  before  have  stood 
apart,  will  come  to  her,  because  in  her  they  will  find  the  fullest 
and  most  effective  means  of  satisfying  the  spiritual  needs  of 
both  the  individual  man  and  the  whole  community. 

Time,  zeal,  great  labor,  and  self-sacrifice  must  all  be  given, 
and  in  abundant  measure,  before  any  such  result  can  be  attained. 
But  If  there  ever  shall  be  any  reunion  of  Christendom,  it 
only  can  be,  I  believe,  upon  essentially  the  principles  which 
have  been  outlined  here. 

J.  F.  Garrison. 


Cl)c  i^^olr  €ucl)ari0t  tl)c  LorD'0  (eirenicon^ 

Prof.  John  J.  Elmendorf,   D.D.,  Western 
Theological   Seminary,   Chicago. 

I  HAVE  been  asked  to  write  a  contribution  to  the  great  sub- 
ject of  union  among  the  followers  of  CHRIST,  and  the 
special  topic  assigned  to  me  is  the  Holy  Eucharist  If  the 
dogmatic,  or  the  controversial,  or  the  historical  treatment  of 
the  subject  were  in  question,  I  should  feel  obliged  to  decline 
the  invitation  so  kindly  extended  to  me.  Centuries  of  contro- 
versy and  very  numerous  dogmatical,  historical,  and  liturgical 
treatises  have  already  presented  all  that  can  be  said  upon  the 
subject.  A  resume  of  these  is  not  now,  perhaps,  demanded. 
But  the  letter  of  the  Bishops  which  has  called  out  such  copious 
correspondence  seems  to  be  an  Eirenicon;  and  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  the  Lord's  own  Eirenicon,  —  not  only  the  bond  of 
love  and  union  between  Him  and  the  faithful,  but  also  the  Sac- 
rament of  love  and  union  throughout  the  members  of  His 
Mystical  Body. 

So  viewed,  my  writing  in  haste  will  not  be  thinking  hurriedly. 
Since  I  have  no  authority  to  speak  for  any  other  than  myself, 
my  words  must,  of  course,  seem  to  be  merely  individual  opinion. 
But  being  what  some  call  an  **  extreme  High  Churchman,"  or, 
what  some  of  us  claim  to  be,  an  Anglo-Catholic  Christian,  I 
will  endeavor  to  present  an  Eirenicon  from  their  point  of  view, 
not  controversially,  nor  even  offering  proofs  or  references,  but 
simply  as  a  part  of  the  call  to  unity  in  the  bond  of  peace  and 
Christian  fellowship. 

If  the  Saviour  of  the  world  preserves  us  in  union  with  Him- 
self through  this  holy  and  blessed  Sacrament,  it  should  surely 
be  the  sign  and  seal  of  unity,  as  it  is  the  source  of  unity  among 
all  believers.  And  if  the  history  of  Christendom  in  its  later 
ages  tells  us  another  story,  the  fault  is  In  us,  not  in  Him  or  in 
the  means  which  He  has  instituted. 

Let  us,  in  the  first  place,  agree  to  say  nothing  of  abuses  or 
perversions  on  one  side  or  the  other.  If  high  doctrine  respect- 
ing the  Holy  Eucharist  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  super- 


232  The  Church  Review. 

stitions  with  which  sensual  or  degraded  souls  have  ever  overlaid 
it,  the  retort,  "  Tu  quoque,"  is  close  at  hand.  Profanation  and 
blasphemy  which  spared  not  the  adorable  Redeemer  Himself 
have  been  the  protest  of  other  sensual  or  degraded  souls.  Let 
us  lay  aside  arguments  from  abuses.  Politics  of  the  baser  sort 
employs  that  kind  of  argument;  let  us  leave  it  there.  One  poli- 
tician is  accused  of  malfeasance  in  office.  If  the  accusation 
is  but  too  glaringly  true,  our  "  leading  newspapers "  retort, 
"You're  another;"  and,  it  seems,  with  fair  success.  But  the 
union  of  Christendom  is  not  to  be  promoted  by  the  use  of 
such  weapons. 

I  seek  only  to  call  attention  to  certain  facts  which  in  these 
days  may  be  sometimes  overlooked,  and  to  try  to  make  some 
necessary  inferences  from  those  facts. 

When,  in  past  days,  the  Holy  Eucharist  has  seemed  to  be  an 
occasion  of  discord,  the  true  cause  of  that  must  have  been  the 
lack  of  charity  or  the  lack  of  faith  in  us.  There  have  been  grave 
misunderstandings  also.  Even  such  a  comparatively  minor 
point  as  kneeling  at  the  reception  of  the  gift  has  been  called 
idolatry,  on  one  side ;  the  refusal  to  do  so,  profanity,  on  the 
other.  Philosophy,  Christian  philosophy,  if  it  please  any  one  to 
call  it  so,  has  undertaken  to  give  a  rational  account  of  the 
Lord's  mysterious  words  in  instituting  this  Sacrament.  And 
rationalism,  substituted  for  simple  faith,  has  asked  the  old 
question,  ''  How  can  this  Man  give  us  His  Flesh  to  eat?  "  I  do 
not  write  for  or  against  either  of  these.  But  addressing  myself 
to  those,  whatever  their  Christian  name  may  be,  who  desire  to 
give  all  faith  and  love  to  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  I  ask  them 
whether  the  perpetual  testimony  to  the  everlasting  Icve  of 
Jesus  needs  to  be  counted  among  the  barriers  which  separate 
us  in  these  last  days. 

If  we  may  make  our  inference  from  the  articles  that  appeared 
in  the  April  number  of  the  CHURCH  Revie\y,  the  question  is 
easily  answered.  Only  one  of  the  twenty  found  serious  diffi- 
culty in  this  direction  [p.  80],  and  objection  was  made  in  that 
reply,  not  to  the  Bishops'  Eirenicon,  but,  first,  to  those  features 
of  our  Liturgy  which  it  shares  with  all  Liturgies  throughout 
Christendom,  at  least  until  the  Reformation,  and,  secondly, 
to  the  seeming  disregard  of  a  part  of  the  Christian  Faith.  A 
possible  answer  to  these  objections  will,  I  humbly  hope,  be 
found  in  the  course  of  this  article. 


The  Holy  Eucharist  the  Loi'cTs  Eirenicon,        ^  ^ 


-  jj 


The  Bisliops  who  issued  the  invitation  to  unicjn  anion;^  Chris- 
tians arc  the  only  authority  which  can  explain  their  words  re- 
specting the  Holy  Eucharist.  Ikit  it  may  be  permitted  to  me 
to  suggest  that  they  have  distinguished  between  Sacramental 
necessity  and  what  may  be  called  viuval  necessity.  Some 
things  are  necessary  for  a  valid  Sacrament.  Other  things  arc 
necessary  for  decency  and  reverence,  for  suitable  action  toward 
God,  and  for  a  proper  expression  of  faith  and  love. 

I.    Sacramental  Requisites. 

These  are  what  the  Bishops  specified.  Without  them  there 
can  be  no  Sacrament,  no  Sacramental  union  among  "  those  who 
profess  and  call  themselves  Christians."  Those  requisites  are 
three  in  number. 

1.  There  must  be  a  lawful  minister  of  the  Sacrament.  Since 
this  commemoration  is  the  outward  as  well  as  inward  act  of  the 
united  family  of  GoD,  it  needs  a  leader  who  may  speak  for 
all,  the  mouth-piece  of  all  who  are  the  "  spiritual  Priesthood, 
ordained  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  GOD 
through  Jesus  Christ."  Viewed  in  this  light  alone,  it  may 
seem  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  finds  the  authority  of  its  minister 
only  in  the  choice  of  those  whom  he  represents. 

But  acting  also  in  Christ's  stead  as  the  medium  through 
which  the  loving  gift  of  Jesus  is  bestowed,  he  must  have  re- 
ceived also  from  his  LoRD  special  authority  and  commission 
for  that  purpose.  If  any  one  assert  that  no  special  gift  is 
bestowed  on  a  worthy  recipient  of  the  Sacrament,  or  that  how- 
ever that  may  be,  the  only  requisites  for  a  valid  administration 
and  a  lawful  ministry  are  election  by  the  brethren  and  an  in- 
ward call  (a  call  which  none  can  attest  but  him  to  whom  it  is 
given),  if  any  one  assert  that  any  Christian  man,  woman,  or 
child  has  like  authority  to  break  bread  and  bless  wine  to  be 
drunk  in  memory  of  the  Lord's  death,  our  way  to  union  with 
him  is  barred.  We  have  no  common  ground  on  which  this 
Eirenicon  can  stand.  I  suppose  that  the  Bishops  imply,  and 
the  twenty  respondents  admit  this  first  requisite  for  a  valid  Sac- 
rament. The  difficulty  of  the  latter  is  found  where  I  have  no 
occasion  to  follow  them ;  to  w^it,  the  deciding  what  constitutes  a 
valid  ordination  of  a  minister  of  this  Sacrament. 

2.  There  must  be  the  Divinely  appointed  action,  the  words 


2  34  The   Church  Review, 

uttered,  the  material  which  the  Lord  blesses,  and  the  out- 
ward act  which  employs  and  unites  the  word  and  the  matter. 
There  is  no  Sacrament  without  the  bread  and  the  wine,  the 
words  of  Institution  which  the  LoRD  employed,  and  the  action 
of  the  minister  which  unites  these.  This  also  the  Bishops 
implied,  and  the  respondents  accepted. 

3.  There  must  be  a  general  intention  on  the  part  of  those 
eneaeed  to  do  what  the  Lord  ordained.  A  mock  celebration 
would  be  empty  and  blasphemous  profanity,  not  a  Sacrament. 
And  I  say  a  general  intention,  because  it  will  not,  I  think,  be 
maintained  that  a  full  understanding  and  agreement  respecting 
what  is  done,  is  requisite.  For  who  of  us  understands  all  that 
we  say  even  when  we  utter  the  Lord's  prayer?  And  our  child 
who  understands  less  still,  may  say  a  truer  prayer  than  we  our- 
selves. So  is  it  also  with  the  Creed  in  which  we  profess  our 
faith.  As  we  move  upward  toward  the  Divine  Light,  many 
things  grow  clearer ;  but  the  clearest  insight  vouchsafed  to  an 
earthly  saint  does  not  pierce  to  the  centre  of  the  Divine  mys- 
teries. Therefore  it  appears  that  only  a  general  intention  on 
the  part  of  minister  or  communicant  is  requisite,  and  not  a  full 
comprehension,  provided  only  that  he  does  not,  in  self-willed 
obstinacy,  pride,  unbelief,  or  hardness  of  heart,  close  his  eyes 
to  such  light  of  truth  as  has  been  given  to  him.  Even  in  that 
case  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  sinfulness  of  the  minister 
hinders  whatever  the  love  of  Jesus  may  be  ready  to  bestow. 
But  I  do  not  touch  any  mooted  point  respecting  the  secret  in- 
tention of  the  minister  of  the  Sacrament.  I  have  in  mind  only 
the  general  intention  of  the  family  of  GOD  to  obey  their  Lord's 
command. 

This  leads  us  to  the  great  question  of  the  Christian  Faith  re- 
specting the  Holy  Eucharist;  but  let  it  be  deferred  while  we 
consider  what  have  been  called  the  moral  requisites  of  a  true 
celebration  of  this  august  Sacrament. 

IL    Moral  Requisites. 

The  Divine  injunction  that  all  "  things  be  done  decently  and 
in  order  "  unites  with  all  due  feelings  of  reverence  and  devotion 
to  make  that  celebration  the  most  solemn,  the  most  august  re- 
ligious act  of  our  holy  religion.  At  the  very  lowest,  and  in 
what  we  Catholic  Christians  consider  to  be  the  most  imperfect 


llie  Holy  Kncharist  the  Lord's  Iiirt7iico7i.        235 

view,  it  is  our  nearest  approach  to  our  Sa\I<)L'I<  and  to  His 
Cross,  on  the  one  side,  to  His  present  glory  on  the  other. 

From  this  moral  necessity  has  arisen  the  use  of  Liturgies  dat- 
ing from  primitive  ages,  and  special  orders  provided  by  the 
various  Protestant  bodies  in  modern  times.  Our  Protestant 
brethren  must  not  misunderstand  our  use  of  the  word  "  Lit- 
urgy." Popularly  employed  for  all  forms  of  Christian  worship 
which  are  not  extemporary,  it  is  used  by  us  in  its  strict  and  nar- 
rower signification,  as  the  ordered  formula  of  the  one  perpetual 
and  always  obligatory  service  of  Christian  people,  the  appointed 
commemoration  of  the  Lord's  sacrificial  death.  Around  the 
three  Sacramental  requisites  have  clustered  other  words  and 
acts,  suited  to  express  Christian  love  and  faith,  and  intended 
for  compliance  with  the  command  to  "  glorify  GoD  with  our 
bodies  and  our  souls,  both  of  which  are  God's." 

Granting,  as  we  freely  do,  that  the  Apostles  and  those  whom 
they  ordained  for  this  purpose,  preserved  only  the  three  Sacra- 
mental requisites  as  an  invariable  norm,  and  expressed  their 
devotion  in  words  spontaneously  arising  or  Divinely  inspired 
for  the  occasion,  we  think  that  no  impartial  inquirer  will  deny 
that  certain  forms  became  at  once  associated  with  Eucharistic 
w^orship.  Among  such  forms  are,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Eucha- 
ristic hymns  like  the  Sanctiis^  an  oblation  of  the  elements  pre- 
viously to  their  being  blessed  as  the  Sacrament,  and  other  such 
ritual  observances.  These  were  the  germs  of  the  Liturgy  of  S. 
James,  of  S.  Mark,  or  some  other  primitive  form.  The  preser- 
vation of  what  are  essentially  the  same  forms  among  the  oldest 
sects  of  Oriental  heretics,  and  the  agreement  between  Churches 
so  widely  separated  as  those  of  Gaul  and  Egypt,  Ephesus, 
Africa,  and  Spain,  are  conclusive  respecting  the  primitive,  we 
might  venture  to  say  the  Apostolic  origin  of  the  chief  feature^; 
of  the  Liturgy.  The  external  evidence  is,  to  say  the  very  least, 
as  strong  as  that  for  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  We 
think  it  to  be  a  note  of  the  Historic  Church  that  in  so  important 
a  matter  the  primitive  path  is  still  pursued.  And  I  will  ven- 
ture to  add  that  the  internal  evidence  of  the  spiritual  power  of 
the  Divine  Liturgy  is  quite  as  great  as  that  of  the  Books  of  the 
Kings,  the   Song  of  Solomon,  or  the  Epistle  of  S.  James. 

But  this  letter  is  not  a  dissertation  on  Liturgies,  and  therefore 
its  author  is  not  called  on  to  specify  the  points  of  agreement 
which   indicate  the  common   source  in  Apostolic   days   of  the 


236  The  CJmrch  Review. 

chief  primitive  Liturgies.  We  are  ready  to  show,  if  necessary, 
that  the  Liturgy  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  Church  is  one  with 
those  primitive  norms,  but  that  is  not  now  in  question. 

In  the  Bishops'  invitation  to  union,  and  in  the  twenty  articles 
of  reply,  there  was  entire  reticence  respecting  what  I  have 
called  the  "  moral  requisites."  The  Bishops,  it  is  to  be  sup- 
posed, understood  that  the  outward  expressions  of  faith  and 
love  vary  according  as  all  human  institutions  are  variable.  If 
sitting  at  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Communion  means  a  wilful 
denial  of  what  the  Catholic  Church  is  obliged  to  teach,  then 
sitting  would  be  condemned  by  her,  along  with  the  unbelief 
from  which  it  springs.  But  in  this  year  of  the  LORD  1890  it  is 
possible  that  a  penitent,  loving,  faithful  Christian  may  approach 
his  God,  and  have  His  SAVIOUR  make  special  approach  to  him, 
while  he  is  sitting  and  not  kneeling,  having  never  learned  or 
practised  any  other  gesture.  He  removes  his  hat,  he  closes  his 
eyes,  he  has  his  own  ritual  observances,  and  will  have  them 
until  his  day  for  ritual  observances  is  past;  and  he  rests  in 
hope  of  a  joyful  resurrection.  On  that  day  of  the  Lord's  re- 
turn and  the  rising  again  in  glorified  humanity  of  all  his  people, 
he  will  make  no  objection  to  the  "  extreme  ritual "  which  S. 
John  saw  in  vision,  and  he  will  see  in  reality.  But  at  present 
the  Bishops  seemed  to  admit  that,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  a 
company  of  faithful  people  might  be  duly  observing  the  Sacra- 
mental requisites,  might  be  one  with  us,  without  those  moral 
requisites  which  the  customs  of  the  Catholic  Church  have 
preserved. 

III.     Sacramental  Intention.    . 

It  is  not  what  Christians  believe  which  divides  them ;  it  is 
their  doubt,  their  denial  of  what  is  affirmed.  But  it  is 
not  doubt  or  denial  which  is  the  work  of  faith ;  it  is  not 
that  which  unites  them  to  their  LORD  and  Saviour.  Sup- 
pose, then,  that  the  three  Sacramental  requisites  are  duly 
observed,  what  will  their  faith  and  love  attest?  The  LORD 
may  be  for  them.  He  may  do  for  them  far  more  than  their 
hearts  conceive;   but  what  will  they  intend? 

I.  All  Christian  people  desire  to  commemorate  the  Sac- 
rifice of  Jesus,  which  was  consummated  on  His  Cross.  All 
desire  to  adore  Him  as  their  LORD,  King  and  Priest  forever, 
ever  living  to  make  intercession  for  them  through  the  merits  of 


The  Holy  Eucharist  I  he  Lonfs  Eirenicon. 


J/ 


His  Cross  and  I'assion.  They  believe  that  He  is  now  present- 
ing Himself,  in  I  lis  glorified  human  nature,  Priest  and  Victim, 
Victim  once  slain,  now  glorified  through  shameful  death  and 
transfigured    Resurrection. 

2.  All  Christians  believe  that  they  arc  "  a  holy  Priest- 
hood"  before  Goi),  permitted  and  enjoined  to  plead  the  merits 
of  their  once  slain  REDEEMER,  and  to  have  their  prayers  for 
themselves  and  their  intercessions  for  one  another  presented  by 
their  great  High-Priest,  with  whom,  by  whom,  and  in  whom, 
they  approach  their  gracious  God.  There  is  but  one  meritori- 
ous sacrifice  continually  offered.  He  "  ever  liveth  to  make  in- 
tercession "  for  them.  This  is  the  one  spiritual  sacrifice  to 
which  they  unite  the  oblation  of  themselves,  **  presenting  their 
souls  and  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,"  acceptable  in  the  Beloved. 

3.  All  Christians  beheve  that  in  this  action  some  spiritual 
gift  is  bestowed  on  them  so  far  as  their  penitence,  faith,  and 
love  have  qualified  them  to  receive  it.  Just  what  that  gift  may 
be,  what  are  the  means  which  the  LORD  employs  for  their  sal- 
vation, they  may  not  clearly  understand.  The  result  of  it  is 
what  has  all  their  attention;  to  wit,  their  union  with  their 
Lord,  and  their  growth  in  His  likeness  through  their  union 
with  Him. 

Whatever  more  is  true,  these  three  things  are  true,  and  he 
must  have  a  very  contracted  soul  who  can  fancy  that  those  who 
endeavor  faithfully  to  observe  all  that  their  LORD  commanded, 
and  have  all  that  is  sacramentally  requisite,  are  rejected  by 
Him  because  of  their  limited  knowledge,  and  the  consequent 
imperfection  of  their  faith. 

4.  But  another  is  more  fully  instructed,  and  has  gone 
farther  in  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  Redemption.  The 
special  gift  bestowed  in  Holy  Communion,  the  special  means 
employed  for  his  salvation,  is  a  participation  of  what  the  LoRD 
of  glory  took  to  Himself,  when  "  for  us  men  and  for  our  salva- 
tion. He  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  Incarnate  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  He  is  '*  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven."  The  fruits  of  this  Christian's 
fuller  faith  may  be  no  more  than  those  of  the  imperfect  faith 
of  his  brother.  And  yet  his  fuller  faith  is  a  good  gift,  and 
should  have  yielded  more  abundant  fruit. 

5.  Another  calls  to  mind  the  spiritualized  and  glorified  na- 
ture of  his  Redeemer,  and  remembers  His  Sacramental  words, 


23S  The  Church  Review, 

"  This,"  which  I  break,  "  is  my  Body."  And  he  beHeves,  not 
understanding  '*  how  this  Man  can  give  us  His  Flesh  to  eat." 
But  he  adores  his  SAVIOUR,  who  has  found  out  earthly  means 
to  come  so  near,  ever  since  He  was  incarnate  for  us.  The 
fruits  of  his  faith  may  be  less  than  his  brother's  are,  though 
they  ought  to  be  more,  since  his  faith  is  more  truly  adapted  to 
all  the  length  and  breadth  of  his  compound  humanity. 

6.  Finally,  another  remembers  that  the  LORD  appointed  an 
outward  and  visible  Sacramental  action;  that  He  said,  not 
merely,  "  Eat  this  in  remembrance  of  Me,"  but,  '*  This  do  for  My 
memorial;  "  that  He  appointed  a  certain  action,  —  the  taking 
into  the  hands  and  breaking,  with  benediction  and  giving  of 
thanks,  the  doing  all  that  from  which  the  Sacrament  obtains  its 
name  of  Holy  Eucharist.  This  is  seen  to  require  a  duly  com- 
missioned representative  of  CHRIST,  as  well  as  a  representative 
of  the  brethren,  one  whose  authority  comes  from  above,  and  not 
merely  from  the  spiritual  Priesthood  of  the  faithful  people. 
Such  an  office  is,  outwardly,  what  all  inwardly  possess  and 
exercise.  If  theirs  is  a  spiritual  Priesthood,  his  is  an  outward 
and  visible  one,  representing  the  other,  which  is  only  such  be- 
cause of  union  with  the  one  true  **  Priest  forever."  What  the 
faithful  do  inwardly,  through  CHRIST,  in  Christ,  and  with 
Him,  that  is  done  outwardly  and  visibly,  in  an  outward  and 
visible  Sacrament,  for  them  and  with  them,  by  their  represent- 
ative, who  is  also  their  Saviour's  representative,  in,  through, 
and  by  the  one  Mediator  between  GOD  and  man,  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus. 

Such  a  fuller  faith  believes  that  all  this  is  true  whether  all  the 
brethren  have  it  in  mind  or  not.  But  who  has  such  authority 
and  outward  Priesthood,  and  how  such  authority  is  conferred 
by  the  LoRD  in  these  last  days,  are  not  questions  now  before 
us.  They  belong  to  that  fourth  condition  of  union  among 
Christians  of  which  the  respondents  to  the  Bishops  have  had 
much  to  say. 

I  will  only  add  that  when  the  Divine  Liturgy  is  used,  all 
these  six  points  of  intention  are  clearly  expressed,  whether 
they  are  fully  in  the  mind  of  the  celebrant  or  not.  But  since 
the  use  of  it  is  not  a  Sacramental  necessity,  and  since  a  full 
understanding  of  it  is  not  requisite,  but  only  a  general  intention 
to  do  what  the  LoRD  commanded,  it  would  seem  that  those 
may  be  united  on  earth  as  they  are  joined  in  the  LORD,  whose 


The  Holy  Encha^-ist  the  Lord's  Eirenicon.        239 

faith,  not  rejecting  any  lii^bt  which  it  lias  received,  is  yet  not 
wholly  ui)on  what  wc  regard  as  the  highest  plane  of  super- 
natural  truth. 

IV.    The  Liturgy  and  Free  Prayer. 

It  is  a  question  sometimes  asked,  Are  Christians  to  be  tied 
down  to  an  unvarying  form  of  prayer,  while  their  needs  arc 
varying  from  day  to  day?  Have  they  not  the  privilege  of 
going  to  their  FATHER,  and  saying  to  Him  their  special  desires 
and  needs,  according  as  their  own  hearts  may  prompt  them? 
And  is  this  liberty,  if  they  have  it,  confined  to  their  own  private 
devotions? 

But  the  answer  readily  appears.  The  Liturgy  is,  indeed, 
an  unvarying  form  in  which  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ 
appears  with  Him  before  the  Father's  throne.  But  it  has  a 
place  for  what  is  one  of  its  moral  requisites,  intercessions  for 
the  living  and  the  departed  members  of  the  Lord.  Nothing 
hinders  their  being  named  personally.  That  is  a  matter  of 
custom  and  convenience.  But  I  have  heard  them  named  in  a 
•*  ritualistic  "  Church,  and  have  used  the  same  privilege  myself, 
under  suitable  circumstances. 

Restore,  also,  the  unvarying  norm  of  worship,  the  Liturgy, — 
and  what  Christian  can  find  it  in  his  heart  to  object  to  it?  —  and 
then,  at  other  times,  Church  order  allows,  or  may  allow,  varied 
prayers.  The  Daily  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  are  pretty  well  understood  to  be  the  regular  offices  of 
the  clergy  and  Church  institutions,  providing  for  their  use  the 
regular  reciting  of  the  Christian's  inspired  Hymnal,  the  Bible 
Psalms,  and  regular  reading  in  course  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

Outside  of  these,  loyal  and  faithful  Christians  may  receive 
license  for  other  prayers,  more  specially  adapted  to  the  special 
occasion,  and  the  Bishops,  within  their  own  jurisdiction,  more 
and  more  frequently  give  such  license.  And  this,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  is  most  freely  done  where  the  Divine  Liturgy  is  most 
frequently  and  regularly  used.  If  I  may  be  allowed  to  use  per- 
sonal illustration,  it  was  in  a  Cathedral  where  it  is  daily  used, 
that  while  holding  a  mission  there,  I  had  the  Bishop's  permission 
to  use  special  prayers  for  that  special  occasion. 

Whenever  the  Holy  Eucharist  shall  become  what  the  LoRD 
made  it.  His  own  Eirenicon  among  Christians,  there  will  surely 


240  The  Church  Review, 

be  no  difficulty  respecting  free  prayer,  which   some  Christian 
societies  may  approve,  while  others  more  carefully  restrict  it. 

V.    What  shall  the    Church    teach    respecting   the 
Holy  Eucharist? 

As  Anglo-Catholics,  we  answer  to  ourselves,  "  What  the 
Church  has  always  taught  in  and  through  the  Liturgy,  which 
is  her  perpetually  living  voice."  This  is  an  unvarying,  living 
voice,  louder,  clearer,  and  more  authoritative  than  all  the  ser- 
mons. Papal  Bulls,  Confessions,  Articles  of  Religion,  or  what 
not,  which  may  issue  from  any  man  or  any  part  of  the  Christian 
Church,  for  the  instruction  and  guidance  of  the  faithful. 

But  one  of  the  twenty  respondents  finds  a  difficulty  respecting 
teaching  [p.  80],  and  asks,  *•  On  the  one  hand,  why,  by  such 
a  proposition  do  they  (the  Bishops)  allow  the  addition  to  the 
words  of  Institution  of  those  prayers  and  ceremonies  by  which 
the  Holy  Communion  is  presented  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  an 
offering  for  the  living  and  the  dead?  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  they  able  to  ignore  the  historical  faith  of  the  Church  in 
the  Real  Presence  of  our  LORD  in^the  Holy  Sacrament?  Is 
not  this  of  faith  too,  and  can  we,  dare  we  intimate  that  it  is  of 
secondary  importance?" 

The  first  question,  i  beg  the  writer  of  the  article  to  notice, 
is  not  a  reply  to  the  Bishops'  Eirenicon,  because  they  said 
nothing  at  all  of  the  use  of  any  of  the  ancient  or  modern  litur- 
gies as  a  condition  of  union.  Therefore  the  writer  was  object- 
ing to  our  usage,  to  that  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  to 
that  of  every  Church  which  from  Apostolic  times  has  used  the 
Liturgy  of  S.  James,  of  S.  Mark,  or  any  other.  He  was  not 
called  upon  to  accept  such  use  for  himself  and  his  brethren. 
The  question  proposed  to  him  was  whether  or  not  he  could  be 
in  outward  communion  with  those  who  did  accept  and  use  such 
a  Liturgy. 

Our  reply  to  the  second  question  is,  that  those  very  Liturgies 
are  the  chief  witnesses,  after  the  Word  of  GOD,  to  the  '*  histori- 
cal faith  of  the  Church  in  the  Real  Presence  of  our  LORD  in 
the  Holy  Sacrament."  There  is  no  one  of  them  in  which  it 
i3  not  as  clearly  expressed  as  in  that  which  the  Bishops  use. 
Viewed  simply  as  a  commentary  on  the  Lord's  own  Eu- 
charistic  words,  they  show  the  clearest,  the  most  unanimous 
agreement. 


The  Holy  Eiicliarist  the  Lord's  Eirenicon.        241 

It  is  most  emphatically  denied  tliat  those  ancient  Liturgies, 
or  that  of  tlic  Anghcan  Church,  which  is  derived  from  them 
and  follows  them  in  all  important  particulars,  present  the  Holy 
Eucharist  as  a  repetition  of  the  one  sacrifice  forever  offered 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  Pretending  to  repeat  that,  is  blas- 
phemy against  ClIRlST;  but  to  be  allowed  to  join  ourselves 
in  what  He  is  doing  forever  at  the  right  hand  of  GoD,  is  the 
most  precious  privilege  of  His  earthly  Body,  the  "  Spiritual 
Priesthood."  And  that  is  what  the  Liturgy  enables  us  to  do  in 
the  most   reverent,   solemn,   and  august   manner. 

In  asserting  this  we  arc,  under  compulsion,  defending  our- 
selves, not  the  Bishops'    Eirenicon. 

Let  us,  then,  take  it  up  again.  Our  last  topic  is  before  us, 
the  objection,  "What,  then,  shall  the  Church  teach  respecting 
the  Holy  Eucharist?  "  Has  the  spiritual  Body  of  CHRIST,  has 
the  '*  Ecclesia  docens,"  any  teaching  to  give  the  contrite, 
believing,  loving  soul?  If  she  "  ignores  "  any  part  of  the  Faith, 
or  "  makes  it  of  secondary  importance,"  is  she  complying  with 
her  Saviour's  command  to  teach  all  her  people  whatever  He 
revealed  and  commanded?  If  Eucharistic  faith  is  believed  to 
be  anywhere  imperfect  among  the  followers  of  the  LORD,  is 
she  not  bound  to  lead  all  onward  and  upward  to  a  higher  and 
truer  faith? 

1.  In  this  form,  the  objection  of  our  Lutheran  brother, 
which,  he  may  well  understand,  is  equally  objection  on  the 
part  of  Anglo-Catholics,  is  not  to  the  teaching  of  Liturgy  and 
Catechism,  but  to  what  he  regards,  and  must  regard,  as  the 
imperfect  teaching  of  our  Protestant  friends.  We  might  well 
leave  the  answer  to  those  who  issued  the  Eirenicon,  and  are 
answerable  for  the  teaching  of  that  part  of  the  Church  which 
is  committed  to  their  care.  But  we  might  ask  our  Lutheran 
friends  whether  they  are  thus  shut  out  from  union  with  other 
Protestants.  Or  do  they  admit  that  others  m^y  have  a  gift 
beyond  what  they  know,  expect,  or  believe?  Would  union 
cause  Lutheran  Christians  to  renounce  or  lose  their  higher  faith 
and  the  teaching  of  it? 

2.  I  am  regarding  the  question  from  another's  point  of 
view.  But  from  our  own  w^e  see  what  does  not  appear  to  be 
familiar  to  our  Protestant  friends.  With  them  the  individual 
preacher  may  stand  on  a  higher  platform,  checked  by  the  Bible, 
which  each  hearer  interprets  according  to  his  best  ability.     A 

16 


242  '  The  Church  Review. 

Church  which  has  the  continual  use  of  the  Liturgy  in  the 
mother-tongue,  and  an  open  Bible  daily  read  in  her  courts,  is 
teaching  with  that  living  voice  which  our  Roman  brethren  seem 
to  think  can  only  be  found  in  an  infallible  earthly  head.  Bible 
and  Liturgy  are  the  infallible  earthly  voice  of  the  DiviNE  Spirit 
speaking  outwardly  and  inwardly  to  the  faithful.  It  is  higher 
than  all  the  preachers,  more  authoritative  than  all  the  Bishops ; 
it  speaks  clearly  and  continuously  age  after  age;  it  is  older 
than  Confessions  and  Articles,  but  it  is  always  new  and  freshly 
applied  to  the  difficulties  of  the  time  and  the  needs  of  each  in- 
dividual soul.  The  Holy  Word  is  spoken  as  the  Lord  and 
His  Apostles  spoke  it;  but  it  is  applied  and  interpreted  in 
being  turned  into  prayer  and  adoration.  The  lex  orandi  is  the 
lex  crcdendi  and  the  lex  doceudi. 

How  far  authority  in  the  Christian  Church  is  bound  to  follow 
the  oral  teaching  of  each  minister  of  Sacraments,  and  require 
a  strict  conformity  to  the  law  of  prayer,  belief,  and  teaching,  is 
a  question  of  Church  discipline  on  which  I  would  rather  not 
touch.  But  it  is  plain  that  the  louder,  clearer,  and  more  au- 
thoritative voice  of  the  whole  Church  is  approving  or  rejecting 
his  poor  murmur  and  echo  of  some  part  of  the  unchangeable 
deposit,  whenever  he  ceases  to  preach  and  begins  to  utter  the 
obligatory  words  of  the  Liturgy. 

3.  It  must  be  plain  to  all  that  the  Bishops  did  not  propose 
that  they  or  the  Church  over  which  they  preside  should  cease 
to  use  the  Liturgy  at  all  times  when  the  Holy  Eucharist  is 
celebrated,  or  should  leave  its  use  optional  with  any  one  whom 
they  ordained.  They  could  not  make  such  a  proposition,  and 
certainly  the  Church  for  which  they  spoke  would  not  sanction 
their  action  if  they  did. 

The  only  practical  question,  therefore,  was  of  restoration  of 
outward  and  visible  communion,  on  the  basis  of  the  three  Sacra- 
mental requisites,  with  those  who  have  discarded,  or  have  never 
used  the  Liturgy.  Each  individual  Christian  man,  each  con- 
gregation of  Christian  men,  and  each  organized  association  of 
believers  will,  I  suppose,  consider,  accept,  or  reject,  as  GOD 
shall  give  them  light  to  consider  and  to  judge.  But,  be  that 
as  it  may,  the  Church  for  which  the  Bishops  speak  will  con- 
tinue to  teach,  as  she  has  received,  the  unalterable  Creed,  to 
use  the  unalterable  Liturgy,  and  to  leave  open  the  door  to  all 
that  will  enter. 


The  Holy  Eiicharisl  the  LoriV s  Eirenicofi.         243 

Her  constitutional  law,  which  is  practically  unalterable,  a  law 
just  renewed  in  this  country  in  Trayer-Book  revision,  says  that 
*' there  shall  none  be  admitted  to  Holy  Communion  until  such 
time  as  he  be  confirmed,  or  ready  and  desirous  to  be  con- 
firmed." This  implies  that  if  so  confirmed,  and  if  there  be  no 
moral  obstacle  which  Church  discipline  is  bound  to  consider, 
he  shall  be  so  admitted.  Hence  the  door  is  open,  and,  so  far 
as  lies  in  us,  there  is  intercommunion  through  the  len^^th  and 
breadth  of  those  three  ancient  Churches  of  Christendom,  the 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Anglican.  For  our  law  without  question 
admits  to  Holy  Eucharist  any  Christian  man  from  any  of 
these  Churches,  or  any  other  Christian  who  is  **  ready  and 
desirous  to  be  confirmed." 

That  confirmation,  on  the  part  of  each  and  every  one  who 
receives  it,  carries  with  it  a  recognition  of  the  **  Historic  Epis- 
copate." And  it  hardly  seems  credible  that  any  Christian  who 
gives  such  recognition  would  refuse  the  "  laying  on  of  hands." 

This  is  fundamental  law  in  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  Anglican 
Churches.  The  Bishops  said  nothing  of  it  in  their  overtures  to 
our  Protestant  brethren ;  so  one  might  infer  that  they  did  not 
regard  this  form  of  recognition  of  their  Divine  office  as  an 
essential  to  intercommunion  with  themselves.  But  they  are 
the  sole  interpreters  of  their  own  w^ords.  The  writer  of  this 
article  has  quoted  no  authorities  for  his  statements,  and  would 
have  added  none,  if  the  Editor  of  the  CHURCH  REVIEW  had 
not  intimated  something  of  this  kind.  Among  familiar  and 
easily  accessible  works  which  confirm  his  chief  statements  may 
be  mentioned,  Daniefs  Codex  Littirgiacs,  Neale's  Tetralogia 
Litiirgica,  Bright's  Annotated  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Forbes 
A.  Corse's  Eirenicon,  or,  latest  and  excellent,  Swainson's  Greek 
Liturgies,  London,  1884. 

J.  J.  Elmendorf. 

Western  Theological  Seminary, 
Chicago. 


Cl)e  a^aliDit^  of  0on€vi^topal  jaDrdination* 

Prof.    Thomas   F.   Gatlor,  M.  A.,  Vice-Chancellor  of 
THE  University  of  the  South. 

T/te  Validity  of  Non-Episcopal  Ordi7iation.  The  Dudleian  Lecture 
delivered  in  the  Chapel  of  Harvard  University,  on  Oct.  iZ,  1888,  by 
George  Park  Fisher,  D.D,,  LL.D.  New  York :  Charles  Scribner's 
Sons.     1888. 

IT  is  interesting  from  time  to  time  to  examine  the  arguments 
of  able  men  against  the  Church's  theory  of  the  ministry,  in 
order  that  we  may  not  deceive  ourselves  by  any  blind  reliance 
upon  the  security  of  our  own  position.  In  the  pamphlet  before 
us  we  have  quite  the  most  learned  statement  on  *'  the  other  side  " 
which  has  appeared  in  America  for  many  years ;  for  Professor 
Fisher's  lecture  is  important  as  presenting  in  a  very  ingenious 
and  complicated  manner  the  whole  argument  against  Episco 
pacy,  and  also  as  indicating  conclusively  the  real  question  at 
issue  in  this  well-worn  debate.  Its  ostensible  object  is  to  dis- 
prove the  claims  of  Episcopacy.  Its  real  object  is  to  deny  the 
existence  of  any  authorized  ministry  at  all.  And  yet  so  cau- 
tiously, so  delicately  are  the  two  things  blended  together  in  the 
lecture  that  it  is  difficult  upon  the  first  reading  to  determine  with 
any  precision  the  several  divisions  of  the  argument.  Everything 
of  positive  or  negative  value  that  has  ever  been  suggested  against 
the  superiority  of  Bishops  is  ingeniously  brought  in  from  time 
to  time,  and  is  reinforced  by  the  underlying  assumption  of  the 
absence  of  any  authorized  organization,  until  the  reader  is  apt  to 
consider  the  argument  as  strong  against  Episcopacy  without 
realizing  fully  its  ulterior  object.  The  following  extracts  from 
different  portions  of  the  lecture  may  serve  to  clear  the  ground. 
The  real  object  to  be  proved  is  stated  as  follows :  — 

We  desire  to  guard  against  the  Sacerdotal  theory  of  the  ministry,  which 
separates  the  clergy  as  a  distinct,  self-perpetuating  body  in  the  Church, 
—  as  a  close  corporation,  —  from  the  laity.  Against  this  theory  the 
Reformers  in  all  Protestant  lands  uttered  an  emphatic  protest.     They 


The  Validity  of  Non- Episcopal  Ordiiiation.       245 

asserted  for  tlie  congregation,  the  general  company  of  Christian  j)eople, 
the  right  to  call  tiieir  ministers,  and  to  provide  for  their  induction  into 
office  [p.  20J. 

The  purpose  of  the  ministry  was  to  perform  acts  which  the  flock,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Oospel,  was  empowered  to  jjerform,  but 
which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  must  perform  through  agents  and 
instruments  [p.  22]. 

The  theory  of  a  clerical  society,  independent  of  the  laity  in  virtue  of 
its  power  to  shut  out  from  the  ministry  whom  it  will,  and  having  in  its 
hands  the  exclusive  authority  to  dispense  the  Sacrament,  is  good  Roman- 
ism, but  not  sound  Protestantism  [p.  22]. 

The  true  theory,  then,  according  to  the  lecturer,  is  that  all 
Christians  are  equally  authorized  to  "  dispense  the  Sacrament" 
and  govern  the  Church ;  the  performance  of  these  offices  is  in- 
trusted to  certain  men  by  the  congregation ;  there  is  no  separate 
class  of  men  who  can  be  called  clergy  in  the  sense  that  they 
have  any  special  Divine  authority  in  what  they  do  distinct  from 
laymen.  In  other  words,  the  visible  Church  is  an  accident  of 
human  association,  and  its  organization  as  a  society  was  the  re- 
sult of  natural  circumstances,  but  not  antecedently  necessary  for 
the  progress  of  the  Gospel. 

Thus  we  are  enabled  to  understand  the  positiveness,  otherwise 
extraordinary,  of  the  following  description  of  the  organization 
of  the  early  Church  ;   namely,  — 

Organization  was  a  gradual  thing.  There  was  from  the  outset  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ;  there  was  baptism,  initiating 
the  convert  into  the  company,  scattered  far  and  wide,  of  His  followers. 
These  followers  were  associated  in  fraternities  in  the  several  towns  where 
they  lived.  Certain  offices  after  models  furnished  by  Jewish  synagogues, 
and  partly,  it  would  seem,  by  Gentile  societies,  both  universal  and  pri- 
vate, grew^  up  one  after  another  as  necessity  called  for  them,  and 
Deacons  and  Deaconesses  to  look  after  the  poor ;  .  .  .  Pastors  to  whom 
is  given  a  kind  of  oversight,  .  .  .  the  tide  Bishop  and  Elder  applied  to 
them  indiscriminately. 

This,  then,  is  the  great  result  of  all  S.  Paul's  words  about  the 
Church,  of  all  his  claims  to  authority:  this  poor,  weak,  uncer- 
tainly organized  "association  of  fraternities"  is  the  actual  real- 
ization of  that  kingdom  which  occupies  so  large  a  share  of  the 
Lord's  teaching,  —  which  was  founded  upon  a  rock  and  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail;   this  is  "the  Church 


246  The  Church  Review, 

of  the  Living  GOD,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,"  ''the  Body 
of  Christ,"  in  which,  according  to  the  Apostle,  GOD,  and  not 
man,  had  established  differences  of  office  and  function,  and  had 
set  "  first  some  Apostles,  secondarily  Prophets,  thirdly  teachers  " 
[  I  Cor.  xii.  28].  This  theory  of  "  municipal  offices  "  and  "  Gen- 
tile societies  "  is  something  for  which  we  should  be  glad  to  see 
some  positive  evidence.  (Professor  Fisher  does  not  accept 
Hatch's  imagination  about  "Episcopal  Almoners.")  It  accords 
well  with  the  theory  of  no  Church  and  no  ministry,  and  would  be 
an  interesting  question,  provided  that  there  were  no  such  docu- 
ments as  the  New  Testament  writings,  and  no  such  thing  as 
Church  history. 

Quite  consistently  we  are  told  that  the  terms  denoting  ordina- 
tion were  the  same  as  those  which  signified  election  or  appoint- 
ment to  civil  office;  and  "  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  not  enumer- 
ated in  several  passages  of  ancient  authorities,  —  for  example, 
in  one  passage  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions}  where  the  essen- 
tials of  ordination  are  set  down  as  included  among  them." 

To  be  sure,  there  is  an  awkward  passage  in  S.  Paul's  II. 
Epistle  to  Timothy  [i.  6],  where  he  says,  *' Stir  up  the  gift 
of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  means  of  the  laying  on  of  my 
hands "  [c.  v.  14],  but  this  is  easily  disposed  of  with  the 
remark,  "  The  gift  of  Timothy  was  his  fitness  for  the  work  to 
which  he  was  appointed.  It  rested,  like  all  the  various  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  [i  Cor.  xii.],  on  native  qualities,  the  basis  of  a  voca- 
tion from  above,  but  further  quickened  and  guided  by  the  SPIRIT 
of  grace.  Prayer  with  the  imposition  of  hands  was  a  supplica- 
tion for  the  Spirit's  influence  "  [p.  9]. 

This  elaborate  explanation,  though  rather  subtle,  is  highly  in- 
teresting, but  seems  quite  unnecessary  to  those  who  are  satisfied 
with  the  universally  received  practice  and  teaching  of  the  Church 
in  late  years,  and  are  therefore  under  no  necessity  to   explain 

1  It  would  hardly  be  inferred  from  this  statement  that  the  Apostolical  Constihi- 
fiofts  distinctly  declare  that  Bishops  and  Priests  and  Deacons  must  all  be  ordained 
by  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  yet  this  is  unquestionably  the  fact  [viii.  46].  The 
lecturer  (misled  by  Hatch)  has  found  a  short  chapter,  one  page  long,  concerning  the 
ordination  of  Bishops,  where  the  phrase  "  laying  on  of  hands  "  does  not  occur,  but 
only  the  word  cheirotonein,  and  therefore  argues  that  there  was  no  "  laying  on  of 
hands  ;  "  when  a  few  chapters  farther  on  "  laying  on  of  hands  "  is  almost  neces- 
sarily included  by  the  bearing  of  the  context  in  cheirotonein.  The  use  of  S.  Augus- 
tine's name  against  the  effect  of  imposition  of  hands  is  positively  amazing.  No  man 
ever  used  stronger  language  about  the  Sacramental  character  of  ordination  [for  ex- 
ample, De  Bon.  Conj.  xxiv.J. 


The  Validity  of  N cm- Episcopal  Ordination,       247 

away  Timothy's  cJi.:risina,  or  to  doubt  that  when  he  was  instructed 
to  lay  hands  on  other  men  for  tlie  work  of  the  ministry,  he  in- 
tended to  convey  to  them  the  gift  which  he  in  the  same  manner 
had  himself  received. 

But  the  discussion  of  the  manner  and  effect  of  ordination 
forms  only  a  part  of  a  wider  argument,  or  rather  statement  of  the 
non-Sacerdotal  character  of  the  ministry;    namely,  — 

This  early  Episcopacy  was  not  Sacerdotal,  but  governmental.  We  find 
that  in  the  second  century  Christian  ministers  were  not  clothed  with  the 
attributes  of  a  Priesthood.  To  Irenceus  and  the  other  Fathers  down  to 
the  period  of  Cyprian,  or  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  Bishops  were 
not  looked  upon  as  Priests.  Even  the  germs  of  such  a  view  are  not 
to  be  discerned  until  near  the  end  of  the  second  century   [p.  7]. 

In  this  passage  the  ominous  word  is  of  course  "  Sacerdotal," 
and  Bishops  are  synonymous  with  Presbyters,  that  being  the 
point  assumed  immediately  before.  What  then  is  this  "  Sacer- 
dotalism," of  which  not  even  ''the  germs"  appear  **  until  near 
the  end  of  the  second  century  "  ?  We  have  a  definition  of  it 
given  on  page  22  ;   namely,  — 

The  theory  of  a  clerical  society,  independent  of  the  laity  in  virtue  of 
its  power  to  shut  out  from  the  ministry  whom  it  will,  and  having  in  its 
hands  the  exclusive  authority  to  dispense  the  Sacrament,  — 

or  in  other  words,  the  theory  taught  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal 
in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  that  no  man  shall  be  accounted 
a  lawful  minister  except  he  have  been  ordained  by  one  having 
authority.  This  is  a  true  Sacerdotalism,  we  admit ;  but  we  are 
afraid  that  we  cannot  accept  the  statement  that  "  even  the  germs 
of  it  do  not  appear  until  near  the  end  of  the  second  century." 
If  Sacerdotalism  mean  that  a  man  must  be  appointed  by  one 
already  in  authority  before  he  can  minister  in  the  Church,  then 
S.  Paul  was  a  Sacerdotalist,  and  so  were  Timothy  and  Titus  ;  for 
they  all  exercised  authority  which  was  distinctly  conferred  on 
them  from  above  and  not  from  the  people.  Against  these  un- 
questioned positive  examples  of  authority  derived  from  above, 
no  one  ever  yet  has  produced  an  instance  of  a  minister  exercis- 
ing authority  in  the  early  Church  who  derived  that  authority 
from  the  congregation.  Indeed,  Clement  of  Rome,  the  first  of 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,  as  early  as  A.  D.  95  seems  to  be  a  Sacer- 


248  The  Church  Review. 

dotalist   [for  example,   Ep,  ad  Coi\  ch.  xl.,   xli.,   xlii.].     (The 
Edinburgh  translation.) 

These  therefore  being  manifest  to  us,  and  since  we  look  into  the  depths 
of  the  Divine  knowledge,  it  behooves  us  to  do  all  things  in  their  proper 
order  which  the  Lord  has  commanded  us  to  perform  at  stated  times. 
He  has  enjoined  offerings  to  be  presented,  and  service  to  be  performed 
to  Him,  and  that  not  thoughtlessly  or  irregularly,  but  at  the  appointed 
times  and  hours.  Where  and  by  whom  He  desires  these  things  to  be 
done,  He  Himself  has  fixed  by  His  own  supreme  will,  in  order  that  all 
things,  being  piously  done  according  to  His  good  pleasure,  may  be 
acceptable  unto  Him.  Those,  therefore,  who  present  their  offerings  at 
the  appointed  times  are  accepted  and  blessed,  for  inasmuch  as  they  fol- 
low the  laws  of  the  Lord,  they  sin  not.  For  His  own  peculiar  services 
are  assigned  to  the  High- Priest,  and  their  own  proper  place  is  prescribed 
to  the  Priests,  and  their  own  special  ministrations  devolve  on  the  Levites. 
The  layman  is  bound  by  the  laws  that  pertain  to  laymen.  Let  every  one 
of  you,  brethren,  give  thanks  {eiicharisteiio,  make  his  Eucharist)  to  God 
in  his  own  order,  living  in  all  good  conscience,  with  becoming  gravity, 
and  not  going  beyond  the  rule  of  the  ministry  prescribed  to  him.  ... 
The  Apostles  have  preached  the  Gospel  to  us  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ;  Jesus  Christ  from  God.  Christ  therefore  was  sent  forth  by 
God,  and  the  Apostles  by  Christ.  Both  these  appointments,  then,  were 
made  in  an  orderly  way,  according  to  the  will  of  God.  Having  there- 
fore received  their  orders,  and  being  fully  assured  by  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  established  in  the  Word  of  God,  with  full 
assurance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  went  forth  proclaiming  that  the 
Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand.  And  thus  preaching  through  countries 
and  cities,  they  appointed  the  first-fruits  of  their  labors,  having  first 
proved  them  by  the  Spirit,  to  be  Bishops  and  Deacons  of  those  who 
should  afterward  believe.  .  .  .  And  what  wonder  is  it  if  those  in  Christ 
who  were  intrusted  with  such  a  duty  by  God,  appointed  those  (ministers) 
before  mentioned,  when  the  blessed  Moses  also,  '  a  faithful  servant  in  all 
his  house,'  noted  down  in  the  sacred  books  all  the  injunctions  which  were 
given  him  ?  .  o  .  For  when  rivalry  arose  concerning  the  Priesthood,  and 
the  tribes  were  contending  among  themselves  as  to  which  of  them  should 
be  adorned  with  that  glorious  title,  he  commanded  the  twelve  princes  of 
the  tribes  to  bring  him  their  rods,  etc.  .  .  .  Did  not  Moses  know  before- 
hand that  this  would  happen?  .  .  .  Our  Apostles  also  knew,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  would  be  strife  on  account  of  the  office  of 
the  Episcopate.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  inasmuch  as  they  had 
obtained  a  perfect  foreknowledge  of  this,  they  appointed  those  (minis- 
ters) already  mentioned,  and  afterwards  gave  instructions  that  when  these 
should  fall  asleep  other  approved  men  should  succeed  them  in  the  min- 


The  Validity  of  Non-Episcopal  07^diiial ion.      249 

istry.  Wc  are  of  opinion  therefore  that  those  appointed  Ijy  them  (the 
Apostles)  or  afterwards  by  other  eminent  men,  with  tiic  consent  of  the 
whole  Church,  and  who  have  hlamelessly  served,  etc.,  cannot  justly  be 
dismissed  from  the  ministry. 

It  is  hard  to  escape  the  conclusion  that  in  S.  Clement's  mind 
the  ministry  derived  its  authority  by  delegation  from  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Apostles  from  ClIRlST  ;  and  that  to  question  their  special 
right  to  the  office  was  to  sin  with  Korah  and  his  company.  Leav- 
ing out  of  view  for  the  present  the  suggestion  of  the  three  Orders 
by  the  mention  of  High-Priest,^  Priest,  and  Levite,  in  connection 
with  an  instruction  on  the  Christian  ministry,  and  minimizing  or 
secularizing  the  phraseology  as  much  as  possible,  it  docs  seem 
(remembering  our  definition  of  real  "  Sacerdotalism  "j  that  we 
have  here  a  "germ"  sufficiently  potential  to  account  for  the 
strong  doctrine  of  Ignatius,^  twenty  years  afterward.  As  al- 
ready said  above,  it  is  quite  easy  to  assume  that  there  was 
no  authorized  ministry,  and  that  one  Christian  had  as  much 
authority  to  "dispense  the  Sacrament"  as  another;  and  it  is 
interesting  to  note  how  a  great  mind  can  make  this  theory 
fit  in  with  the  facts,  but  we  should  like  to  have  one  single 
positive  fragment  of  evidence  to  support  it.  It  certainly  can- 
not be  found  in  the  New  Testament.  There  the  line  was 
clearly  drawn  between  the  laity  and  those  who  were  "  over 
them  in  the  Lord"  [i  Thess.  v.  12],  just  as  it  had  been  by 
the  Jews  before.  There  were  men  who  had  authority  to  re- 
buke, to  exhort,  to  warn,  and  to  whose  cai-e  the  people  were 
committed  as  a  flock  to  the  Shepherd  [Acts  xx.  28]. 
There  were  "Apostles"  and  "  Elders  "  as  well  as  "brethren," 
and  the  perpetuity  of  the  system  was  provided  for  in  the  in- 

^  The  word  "  high-priest  "  [archiei-etis]  occurs  in  the  Didache  [a.  d.  90]  as  the 
designation  of  an  officer  in  the  Christian  Church  superior  to  Bishops  and  Deacons 
[xiii.  3].  Dr.  Schaff  calls  this  the  "first  intimation  of  the  'Sacerdotal  view'" 
[p.  206  n.]. 

2  Ignatius  [a.  d.  iio]  says  :  "In  like  manner  let  all  men  respect  the  Deacons  as 
Jesus  Christ,  even  as  they  should  respect  the  Bishops  as  being  a  type  of  the 
Father  and  the  Presbyters  as  the  council  of  Gon  and  as  the  college  of  Apostles. 
Apart  from  these  there  is  not  even  the  name  of  a  Church"  \Ep.  ad  Tral.  3].  "  He 
that  is  within  the  sanctuary  [tJnisiasterion)  is  clean  ;  but  he  that  is  without  the  sanc- 
tuary is  not  clean, — that  is,  he  that  doeth  aught  without  the  Bishop  and  Presbytery 
and  Deacons,  this  man  is  not  clean  in  his  conscience  "  \Ibid.  7].  Ignatius  is  so  intent 
on  the  authority  of  the  Bishops  that  he  does  not  stop  their  succession  with  the 
Apostles,  but  traces  it  back  to  Christ  Himself.  And  so  the  lecture  makes  a  point 
and  gravely  informs  us  [p.  13]  that  Ignatius  "deems  the  Bishops  to  be  successors, 
not  of  the  Apostles,  but  of  Christ." 


250  The  Church  Review. 

structions  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  to  '*  commit  tlie  traditions 
to  faithful  men  who  shall  teach  others  "  also,  and  ''  to  ordain 
Elders  in  every  city."  In  the  only  ordination  of  officers 
recorded,  the  people  elected,  but  the  authorized  ministry 
ordained  [cf.  Article  "Laity"  in  Smith's  Diet.  Chris.  AntiqP\. 
It  is  no  reply  to  this  to  say  that  the  government  under  the 
Apostles  was  extraordinary;  for  the  very  fact  that  it  was 
**  extraordinary  "  —  not  only  "  extraordinary,"  but  inspired  — 
might  guarantee  the  conclusion  that  their  constitutional  dis- 
tinctions were  of  a  necessary  and  permanent  character.  If  a 
regular  minister  was  deemed  necessary  at  a  time  when  mi- 
raculous gifts  were  common,  how  much  more  when  miracles 
had  ceased  !  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that,  three  generations 
afterward,  the  whole  Church,  insisting  upon  the  integrity  of 
its  traditions,  did  so  regard  them ;  and  yet  we  are  asked  to 
assume,  without  positive  evidence,  that  two  revolutions  took 
place  in  the  mean  time,  —  first,  a  reversal  of  the  constitution 
which  obtained  under  the  Apostles,  and  a  substitution  of 
another  copied  from  Jewish  and  Gentile  models,  and  second, 
a  revolution  returning  again  to  the  original  constitution. 

For  this  is  the  all-important  question :  Was  the  authority 
exercised  by  the  Christian  ministry  delegated  to  them  by  those 
in  authority  before  them,  or  were  they  only  accidental  and  pro- 
visional officers  who  were  appointed  by  the  people  as  imitations 
of  Jewish  and  Gentile  civil  and  municipal  officers?  If  the  lat- 
ter view  is  true,  then  we  ignore  the  inspiration  in  any  special 
sense  of  the  New  Testament,^  and  we  are  to  suppose  that  in 
one  hundred  years  the  Christian  Church  had  completely  revo- 
lutionized the  primitive  teaching  and  practice,  and  we  have  an 
instance  of  something  evolved  by  natural  process  out  of  noth- 
ing. Then  we  shall  say  that  the  word  or  words  used  to  describe 
**  ordination  "  meant  nothing  more  to  the  Christians  than  they 
did  when  used  to  describe  the  heathen  appointments  to  civil 
offices.     Why  not  go  on  and  say  that  baptism,  being  a  Greek 

1  Dr.  Hatch,  upon  whose  Bampton  Lectures  this  view,  as  stated  in  the  lecture,  is 
based,  frankly  admits  that  he  is  treating  the  question  of  ecclesiastical  organization 
without  regard  to  the  New  Testament  evidence  [p.  20],  and  assuming  that  the  ori- 
gin of  the  Christian  Church  can  be  accounted  for  like  any  fact  in  civil  history, 
"  without  any  special  interposition  of  that  mysterious  and  extraordinary  action  of 
the  Divine  volition  which,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  we  speak  of  as  '  supernat- 
ural'"  [p.  18].  This  sounds  like  the  title  which  the  Deist  Toland  gave  to  his 
work,  "  Christianity  not  mysterious." 


The  Validity  of  N'on-Episcopal  Ordination.       251 

word  mcaniiif^  washing,  can  have  no  special  Christian  significa- 
tion? So  with  Eucharist  and  hxclesia,  —  had  they  no  special 
meaning  as  used,  for  example,  by  S.  Paul?  Is  it  not  true,  as  Prof. 
A.  V.  G.  Allen  {Coiititiuityy  etc.,  p.  224]  says,  that  the  ques- 
tion is  deeper  than  that  of  the  ministry,  — that  the  real  point  is 
whether  there  is  a  supernatural  as  distinguished  from  a  natural 
order,  and  that  the  moment  you  admit  that  there  is,  then  you 
open  the  way  for  a  Sacerdotal  conception  of  the  Church  with 
ministry  and  sacraments?  But  let  us  do  away  with  the  idea  that 
ordination  means  anything,  or  that  the  Church  means  an)thing, 
then  we  shall  fall  back  upon  a  most  seductive  but  most  destruc- 
tive Pantheism  which  leaves  no  room  for  sin  or  sacrament,  for 
ministry  or  Churches,  or  for  the  Incarnation  itself. 

It  is  evident  that  if  it  be  assumed  that  there  is  no  authorized 
ministry  at  all,  any  discussion  of  the  origin  of  Episcopacy  is 
superfluous.  Therefore  this  fundamental  question  has  received 
a  longer  notice,  although  the  greater  part  of  Professor  Fisher's 
lecture  is  taken  up  with  a  discussion  of  Episcopacy.  He  admits 
that  there  was  no  period  when  the  Presbyters  and  Deacons  did 
not  have  a  superior  officer  over  them.  He  also  admits  that  the 
position  of  S.  James  at  Jerusalem,  and  of  Timothy  and  Titus 
in  Ephesus  and  Crete,  was  practically  that  of  modern  Bishops 
[pp.  10  and  14].  He  also  sees  in  the  tradition  which  ascribes 
the  Episcopal  organization  in  Asia  Minor  to  the  Apostle  John 
"  a  kernel  of  truth  "  [p.  14].  We  might  ask  what  more  could 
be  desired?  But  we  are  met  by  the  reply  that  the  Episcopacy 
which  succeeded  the  New  Testament  period  was  not  "  roving  " 
nor  "■  Diocesan,"  but  "  parochial."  But  we  reply  that  makes 
no  real  difference,  for  if  you  admit  that  there  was  one  officer 
associated  with  a  number  of  Presbyters  and  having  superior 
authority,  \\\q  principle  of  Episcopacy  is  proved,  whether  they 
were  roving  or  confined  to  one  city,  or  to  one  parish,  or  to  one 
room.  It  is  not  a  question  of  names  nor  of  places,  but  of  an 
office  and  authority.  The  language  of  the  lecture  is  as  follows; 
namely,  — 

If  Diocesan  Episcopacy  had  followed  these,  the  work  fulfilled  by  the 
Evangelists  (Timothy  and  Titus)  might  plausibly  be  considered  the 
beginning  of  it,  and  later  Bishops  might  be  thought  to  be  their  lineal 
successors.  But  the  office  of  the  early  Bishops,  when  they  became  dis- 
tinguished from  other  Presbyters,  was  not  at  all  a  roving  Episcopate.  It 
was  a  local  or   parochial    Episcopate    or   superintendence,  —  as    com- 


252  The  Church  Review, 

pletely  so  as  the  office  of  any  Presbyterian  or  Congregational  pastor  at 
the  present  day. 

In  other  words,  the  assumption  of  "  no  authorized  ministry," 
which  underlies  the  whole  lecture,  takes  the  force  out  of  all 
admissions  in  favor  of  Episcopacy.  This  ''  parochial  Episco- 
pate "  means  simply  the  charge  of  a  congregation  by  one  pas- 
tor, himself  authorized  by  the  people,  and  assisted  (!)  by  a 
company  of  Elders,  who  themselves  have  no  ministerial  functions 
or  authority.  This  the  lecture  admits  was  not  the  kind  of  Epis- 
copacy exercised  by  Timothy  and  Titus ;  therefore  there  was 
no  precedent  for  it.  It  was  not  the  Episcopate  known  to  I  re- 
nins in  A.  D.  175,  therefore  it  was  not  continued  in  the  Church. 
And  just  why  it  should  be  imagined  here  without  one  line  of 
positive  evidence  is  hard  to  see. 

Yet  it  renders  the  further  discussion  of  Episcopacy  practi- 
cally useless,  for  if  we  are  allowed  to  assume  every  time  that 
Episcopacy  is  mentioned  by  an  early  writer  that  it  refers  to  a 
single  pastor  with  lay  Elders  in  charge  of  his  flock,  then  any 
theory  can  be  established.  Ignatius,  for  example  (whose  date, 
by  the  way,  is  "  determined  "  with  sufficient  "  positiveness  "  to 
place  it  between  108  and  112  A.  D.,  —  cf.  Lightfoot  Ap.  F.  I. 
30),  is  disposed  of  with  the  remark  that  "  his  Bishops  are  local 
or  parochial,"  which  is  true  only  in  the  sense  that  perhaps  his 
Bishops  did  not  exercise  their  jurisdictions  over  areas  as  large 
as  modern  Dioceses.  It  is  pure  assumption  to  say  that  Igna- 
tius' Bishops  were  **  parochial  "  in  any  other  sense. 

Again,  it  is  impossible  to  discuss  the  question  fairly  when  the 
mind  is  confused  by  inaccurate  conceptions  of  what  the  real 
point  at  issue  is.  Churchmen  hold  that  there  are  two  facts 
which  raise  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  principle  of 
Episcopal  government ;  namely,  the  fact  that  the  whole  Church 
after  S.  Cyprian  [250  A.  D.],to  take  a  late  date,  maintained  the 
principle  not  only  as  historically  true  but  as  essential,^  and  sec- 

1  Eusebius,  "  the  Father  of  Ecclesiastical  History,"  wrote  his  history  of  the 
Church  in  340  a.  d.,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Emperor  had  access  to  all  the  rec- 
ords. He  made  faithful  use  of  the  libraries  in  Caesarea  and  Jerusalem,  and  has 
preserved  fragments  of  many  valuable  documents  which  have  since  been  lost.  A 
detailed  account  of  his  sources  of  information,  sixty  in  number,  has  been  given  by 
Flugge.  [Cf.  Schaff.  Ap.  Ch.  p.  52.]  Eusebius  gives  in  his  history,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  the  succession  of  Bishops  from  the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alex- 
andria, Rome,  and  Csesarea.  Episcopal  government  is  evidently  the  only  kind  of 
Church  government  that  he  ever  heard  of. 


The  Validity  of  No7i-]ipiscopal  Ordination.       253 

ondl}',  the  fact  that  the  principle  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  this  is  even  a  stronger  presumption  than  that 
for  the  Canon  of  Scripture.  Against  this,  admitting  all  that 
may  be  said  about  the  unfixedncss  of  nomenclature  in  a  forma- 
tive period,  no  positive  evidence  can  be  adduced,  however  much 
inferences  may  be  drawn  from  the  silence  of  two  or  three  docu- 
ments whose  negative  value  vanishes  before  the  positive  state- 
ments of  contemporaries.  Yet  the  lecture  informs  us  that  the 
question  is  whether  we  can  find  any  Apostolic  decree  on  this 
subject  [p.  10],  and  this  is  repeated  two  or  three  times.  We 
might  as  well  look  for  an  "  Apostolic  decree  "  on  the  subject  of 
the  Divinity  of  CHRIST  or  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

Why  should  nearly  two  pages  of  the  lecture  be  taken  up  with 
the  possible  significance  of  the  silence  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  when  we 
have  positive  evidence  of  considerable  value  that  both  Clement 
and  Polycarp  were  themselves  Bishops?  [Iren.  Cont.  Her.  iii. 
3,  3,  Ignatius  Ad  Polyc.  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp^  No  just 
inference  against  its  Episcopal  character  can  be  drawn  from  the 
absence  of  Bishops  in  the  American  Church  during  the  period 
before  the  Revolution.  Negative  arguments  are  of  small  value, 
especially  when  opposed  to  positive  evidence  and  when  urged 
in  defence  of  a  case  which  has  the  burden  of  proof  to  bear. 
However,  without  recounting  the  clear  evidence  of  Hegesippus 
[150],  Polycrates  [175],  and  Tertullian  [200],  Churchmen  may 
safely  rest  their  case  on  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus.  As  Bishop 
Lightfoot  has  said  concerning  the  Canon  of  Scripture :  — 

It  is  high  time  that  fascinating  speculations  should  be  shaken  off,  and 
that  Englishmen  (or  Americans?)  should  learn  to  exercise  their  judicial 
faculty  independently.  Any  one  who  will  take  the  pains  to  read  Ire- 
naeus  through  carefully,  endeavoring  to  enter  into  his  historical  position 
in  all  its  bearings,  striving  to  realize  what  he  and  his  contemporaries 
actually  thought  about  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  what 
grounds  they  had  for  thinking  it,  and  above  all,  resisting  the  temptation 
to  read  in  modern  theories  between  the  lines,  will  be  in  a  more  favorable 
position  for  judging  rightly  of  the  eariy  history  of  the  Canon  than  if  he 
had  studied  all  the  monographs  which  have  issued  from  the  German 
press  during  the  last  half-century  \Essay  on  Sup.  Rel.  p.  141]- 

What  is  true  of  the  Canon  is  equally  true  of  the  Episcopate ; 
for  the  life  of  Irenaeus  extends  over  the  period  from  about    120 


2  54  The  Church  Review, 

A.  D.  to  175  A.  D.  He  represented  three  Churches  at  least,  sit- 
uated in  different  quarters  of  the  world;  namely,  Asia  Minor, 
Rome,  and  Gaul,  — having  been  brought  up  in  Asia  Minor, 
having  frequently  visited  Rome,  and  being  himself  Bishop  of 
Lyons  in  Gaul.  He  was  a  pupil  of  S.  John's  disciple.  Poly- 
carp,  and  he  lived  for  years  in  daily  companionship  with  Po- 
theinus,  who  must  have  been,  from  the  evidence,  ten  years  old 
when  S.  John  died.  Iren^eus'  testimony  to  the  succession  of 
the  Episcopate  occurs  incidentally  (all  the  stronger  for  that) 
in  his  work  against  Heresies  [iii.  3,  i],^  and  is  contained  in 
the  well-known  passage: 

The  tradition,  therefore,  of  the  Apostles,  made  manifest  in  all  the 
world,  all  may  look  back  upon,  who  wish  to  see  things  truly.  And  we 
are  able  to  recount  those  whom  the  Apostles  appointed  to  be  Bishops  in 
the  Churches,  and  their  successors  quite  down  to  our  time,  who  neither 
taught  nor  knew  any  such  thing  as  they  fondly  devise.  Yet  surely  if 
the  Apostles  had  known  any  hidden  mysteries,  which  they  used  to  teach 
the  perfect,  apart  and  unknown  to  the  rest,  they  would  deliver  it  to  those 
even  more  than  others  to  whom  they  were  intrusting  the  Churches 
themselves.  For  very  perfect  and  blameless  in  all  things  would  they 
have  them  to  be  whom  they  were  leaving  to  be  their  actual  successors, 
committing  to  them  their  own  place  of  presidency,  whose  correct  deal- 
ing would  be  a  great  advantage,  their  failure  again  an  extreme  calamity. 
But  because  it  were  very  long  in  such  a  work  as  this  to  reckon  up  the 
successions  in  all  the  Churches,  there  is  one  very  great  and  most  ancient 
and  known  to  all  the  Church  founded  at  Rome,  etc. 

He  then  gives  the  names  of  the  Roman  Bishops ;  namely, 
Linus,  Anencletus,  Clement,  Evarestus,  Alexander,  Xystus, 
Telesphorus,   Hyginus,  etc. 

In  other  places  Irenaeus  sometimes  applies  the  word  "  presby- 
ters "  to  the  Bishops,  very  justly  too,  because  a  general  must  be 

1  Traditionem  itaque  Apostolorum  in  toto  mundo  manifestatam  in  omni  eccle- 
sia  adest  respicere  omnibus  qui  vera  velint  videre ;  et  habemus  annumerare  eos  qui 
ab  Apostolis  instituti  sunt  episcopi  in  ecclesiis  et  successores  eorum  usque  ad  nos 
qui  nihil  tale  docuerunt  neque  cognoverunt  quale  ab  bis  deliratur.  Etenim  si 
recondita  mystena  scissent  Apostoli,  quae  seorsim  et  latenter  ab  reliquis  perfectos 
docebant,  his  vel  maxime  traderent  ea  quibus  etiam  ipsas  ecclesias  comniittebant. 
Valde  enim  perfectos  et  irreprehensibiles  in  omnibus  eos  volebant  esse,  quos  et 
successores  relinquebant,  suum  ipsorum  locum  magisterii  trad^ntes  ;  quibus  emen- 
dati  agentibus  fieret  magna  utilitas  lapsis  autem  summa  calamitas.  Sed  quoniam 
valde  longum  est  in  hoc  tali  volumine  omnium  ecclesiarum  enumerare  successiones, 
maximae  et  antiquissimae  et  omnibus  cognitse,  a  gloriosissimis  duobus  Apostolis 
Petro  et  Paulo  Romae  fundatae,  etc.  [iii.  3,  ij. 


The  Validity  of  Non- Episcopal  Ordination.       255 

a  soldier,  and  a  liishop  is  nothin^^  if  not  a  Priest.  lUit  from  this 
fact  we  have  the  extraordinary  inference  [p.  14]  that  Ircna.*us 
*'  held  to  no  essential  distinction  between  the  respective  func- 
tions of  *  bishop  '  and  '  presbyter,'  "  which  hardly  tallies  with  a 
previous    remarkable   statement  [p.  13]  that 

Irenaius  plainly  falls  into  the  mistake  of  regarding  the  Ephcsian  Elders 
who  met  the  Apostle  Paul  at  Miletus  as  *  the  P>ishops  and  Presbyters 
which  were  of  Ephesus  and  of  other  towns  in  the  neighborhood,'  which 
demonstrates  that  he  antedated  the  origin  of  the  Episcopal  system. 

In  short,  Ircnaeus  is  so  wedded  to  Episcopacy  that  he  ignores 
the  fact  that  in  the  New  Testament  "  bishop  "  and  "  presbyter  " 
are  sometimes  interchangeable  terms ;  and  yet  lie  is  charged 
with  holding  no  essential  distinction  between  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters !  Bishop  Lightfoot  has  a  few  words  on  this  subject 
which  are  weighty  and  to  the  point ;    namely,  — 

A  Bishop  may  be  called  presbyteros^  but  a  Presbyter  is  not  called 
conversely  episcopos.  In  Irenseus,  for  instance,  presbyteros  has  a  very 
wide  significance,  being  used  of  antiquity  or  of  old  age,  as  well  as  of 
office.  In  this  wider  sense  the  presbyteroi,  the  'elders,'  are  the  primi- 
tive Fathers  (irrespective  of  office),  whose  views  of  Christian  doctrine  and 
practice  are  especially  valuable  by  reason  of  their  proximity  to  the 
Apostles.  On  the  other  hand,  he  always  ejnploys  '  episcopos '  with 
precision  of  the  Episcopal  office  alone  \_Ap.  Fath.  I.  378,  n.]. 

Again :  — 

The  view  of  Irenaeus  respecting  the  subject  before  us  is  unmistakable. 
The  Episcopate,  as  distinct  from  the  Presbyterate,  is  the  only  Episcopate 
which  comes  within  the  range,  not  only  of  his  personal  acquaintance, 
but  even  of  his  intellectual  and  historical  cognizance  [Ibid.  378]. 

These  words  of  that  distinguished  scholar,  who  is  quoted  more 
than  once  in  the  lecture,  are  even  more  significant  when  taken 
in  connection  with  his  judgment  about  Ignatius;   namely, — 

If  the  evidence  of  its  extension  (that  is,  of  the  Episcopate)  in  the  regions 
east  of  the  ^gean  at  this  epoch  [that  is,  a.  d.  no]  be  resisted,  I  am  at 
a  loss  to  understand  what  single  fact  relating  to  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  during  the  first  half  of  the  second  century  can  be  regarded 
as  established  ;  for  the  testimony  in  favor  of  this  spread  of  the  Episco- 
pate is  more  abundant  and  more  varied  than  for  any  other  institution  or 
event  during  this  period  so  far  as  I  recollect  \_/bid.  p.  377]. 


2-6  The  Church  Review. 

So  much  for  the  fact  ^  of  Episcopacy.  Its  full  meaning  and 
significance  are  arrived  at  not  only  by  historical  investigation, 
but  by  logical  deduction.  Some  minds,  like  that  of  S.  Cyprian, 
cannot  allow  facts  to  jostle  one  another,  so  to  speak,  in  their 
memories  without  unifying  and  accounting  for  them  in  a  cohe- 
rent, philosophical  system.  Thus  the  Catholic  Church  for  at 
least  fifteen  centuries,  in  spite  of  the  contradiction  of  the 
Papacy  [Counc.  Trent,  sess.  22],  has  held  not  only  to  the 
Episcopate  as  an  historic  fact,  but  to  the  Apostolical  succession 
as  the  only  intelligible  and  defensible  philosophy  of  that  series 
of  sacraments  and  mysteries  which  CHRIST  established,  and  His 
ministry  has  perpetuated.  But  on  the  lowest  grounds,  judged 
merely  as  a  question  of  historical  interest,  thinking  only  of  the 
truth  and  not  of  the  consequences,  can  any  man  with  all  the 
evidence  before  him  refuse  to  accept  Bishop  Lightfoot's  very 
cautious  and  sifted  statement,  that  the  form  of  the  viinistry  has 
been  hajided  down  from  Apostolic  times,  and  may  well  be  presumed 
to  have  a  Divine  sanction  ?     [Christian  Ministry,  p.  145.] 

As  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  on  this  subject 
at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  "  argument  from  silence  "  is 
again  strongly  urged  by  the  lecturer.  Individual  Churchmen, 
during  those  terrible  years  between  1559  and  1589,  when  the 
world  was  divided  by  the  sword  between  Papalists  and  anti- 
Papalists,  did  refrain  from  denouncing  the  want  of  Episcopal 
organization  among  their  fellow-reformers,  thinking,  as  Bram- 
hall  says,  that  it  was  "  charity  to  think  well  of  our  neighbors 
and  good  divinity  to  look  well  to  ourselves"  [vol.  iii.  Serp. 
Salve,  p.  475].  It  is  true  that  Hooker,  while  maintaining  that 
"  the  institution  of  Bishops  was  from  heaven,  was  even  of  GOD, 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  author  of  it"  [vi.  5,  10],  did  admit 
an  ordination  without  Bishops  in  case  a  man  was  "  raised  up  by 
God  "  and  his  *'  calling  ratified  by  manifest  signs  and  tokens 
from  heaven,"  or  in  case  there  was  an  "  exigence  of  necessity" 
where  "  the  Church  must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and 
neither  hath  nor  can  have  possibly  a  Bishop  to  ordain"  [vii.  14, 

1  It  has  not  been  thought  necessary  here  to  discuss  the  opinions  of  S,  Jerome 
[410  A.  D.],  although  the  lecture  lays  great  stress  upon  them,  because  (i)  Jerome 
is  too  late  by  at  least  three  hundred  years  to  give  us  any  new  evidence ;  (2)  There 
is  really  nothing  in  his  vi^ritings  which  materially  affects  the  argument;  {3)  His 
views  on  the  ministry  have  been  discussed  at  great  length  by  many  writers,  notably 
by  Mr.  Gore  in  his  Church  and  the  Ministry  [pp.  137,  380]. 


The  Validity  of  No7i-Episcopal  Ordination.       257 

11].  It  may  even  be  tliat  there  were  isolated  cases  of  men  who 
officiated  in  the  Enghsh  Church  in  violation  of  the  law,  without 
having  received  Episcopal  ordination,  although  the  two  in- 
stances mentioned  by  the  Puritan  Neale  are  instances  of  men 
who  were  tried  and  condemned  for  that  very  offence.  Yet 
the  fact  remains  that  the  law  of  the  Church  of  I'^ngland  never 
wavered  for  an  instant.  The  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  in  the  ]5ook 
of  Common  Prayer,  indorsed  by  the  Articles,  distinctly  taught 
Episcopacy  as  a  principle  and  a  fact.  It  makes  no  difference 
whether  Cranmer  got  his  catechism  from  Justus  Jonas  or  not. 
The  language  of  that  document  was  adopted  as  his  language, 
and  must  be  interpreted  according  to  the  laws  of  language.  It 
was  published  moreover  just  at  the  time  that  the  Preface  to  the 
Ordinal  was  written,  and  therefore  explains  it.  Cranmer's 
words  {Sermon  on  Keys),  are  as  follows;   namely, — 

After  Christ's  ascension  the  Apostles  gave  authority  to  other  godly 
and  holy  men  to  minister  Cod's  Word,  and  chiefly  in  those  places  where 
there  were  Christian  men  already,  which  lacked  preachers,  and  the 
Apostles  themselves  could  no  longer  abide  with  them.  For  the  Apostles 
did  walk  abroad  into  divers  parts  of  the  world,  and  did  study  to  plant  the 
Gospel  in  many  places.  Wherefore  when  they  found  godly  men  and 
meet  to  preach  God's  Word,  they  laid  their  hands  upon  them  and  gave 
them  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  themselves  received  of  Christ  the  same 
Holy  Ghost,  to  execute  this  office.  And  they  that  were  so  ordained, 
were  indeed,  and  also  were  called,  the  ministers  of  God,  as  the  Apostles 
themselves  were.  And  so  the  ministration  of  God's  Word  (which  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  did  first  institute)  was  derived  from  the 
Aposdes  unto  others  after  them,  by  imposition  of  hands  and  giving  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Apostles'  time  to  our  days.  And  this  was 
the  consecration,  orders,  and  unction  of  the  Apostles,  whereby  they  at 
the  beginning  made  Bishops  and  Priests ;  and  this  shall  continue  in  the 
Church,  even  to  the  world's  end.  And  whatsoever  rite  or  ceremony 
hath  been  added  more  than  this,  cometh  of  man's  ordinance  and  policy, 
and  is  not  commanded  by  God's  Word. 

It  would  Indeed  be  a  triumph  of  genius  to  show  that  when 
Cranmer  used  those  words  he  rejected  the  Apostolical  suc- 
cession and  held  to  the  equal  right  of  all  Christians  to  admin- 
ister the  Sacraments  and  preach  the  Word  in  the  congregation. 
More  might  be  said  about  the  almost  unanimous  recognition  on 
the  part  of  the  Continental  Reformers  (for  example,  Melancthon, 
•  Bucer,  Beza,  Calvin,  —  the   Augsburg  Confession   itself)  of  the 

17 


25S  The  Church  Review. 

historic  fact  of  Episcopacy.  In  reply  to  the  statement  that "  Apos- 
toHcal  succession  "  means  Romanism  [p.  30],  attention  might  be 
drawn  to  the  fact  urged  by  Burnet,  Pearson,  Bramhall,  and 
others,  that  the  Papal  theory  has  ever  been  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  •*  Divine  right  of  Bishops;  "  that  the  Council  of  Trent  for 
that  reason  refused  to  state  the  doctrine ;  and  that  it  was  not 
until  Popery  had  dethroned  Episcopacy  that  Protestantism  took 
courage  to  dethrone  it  also.  P'or,  as  Burnet  says  \_Rcf.  I.  347], 
the  theory  of  parity  of  Orders  is  "  the  very  dregs  of  Popery." 

But  enough  has  been  said  to  vindicate  at  least  the  ve-y 
moderate  proposal  of  the  Bishops  in  their  plea  for  unity,  and 
to  show  that  the  Historic  Episcopate  as  a  principle  of  Church 
government  is  the  very  least  that  could  be  insisted  upon  con- 
sistently with  a  belief  in  a  supernatural  revelation  illustrated 
by  the  evidence  of  antiquity  and  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church. 

TiiOxMAS  F.  Gailor. 


Cljc  iDoicc  of  tl)e  Cl)urcl)  of  Cnglanti  on 
(£pi0copal  iDrDination. 

Rev.  Arthur  Lownues. 

THIS  article  is  written  in  answer  to  the  rcc|ucst  of  the  Editor 
of  the  Church  RevH':\v  that  I  should  state  what  view 
the  Church  of  England  has  held  on  the  Historic  Episcopate 
during  the  period  covered  by  the  years  1534  to  1589,  and  that 
this  paper  should  be  as  far  as  possible- an  abstract  of  the  various 
articles  on  The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  England  contained  in 
the  Church  Review  since  April,  1887.  Those  two  dates,  1534 
and  1589,  have  been  chosen  for  the  reason  that  before  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  Papal  supremacy  in  England  in  1534,  and  the 
preaching  of  Bancroft's  sermon  in  1589,  no  one  has  called  in 
question  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  matter 
at  issue. 

It  is  admitted  that  before  1534  the  validity  of  the  Sacraments 
was  connected  with  the  Episcopal  succession,  and  that  the  ex- 
clusive validity  of  Episcopal  ordination  was  the  sole  view 
taught  and  tolerated  in  the  Church  of  England. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  this  view  concerning  ordination  and  the 
Sacraments  was  rejected  by  the  Church  at  the  Reformation,  and 
that  the  very  first  time  it  was  broached  again  in  England  was 
on  the  occasion  of  Bancroft's  sermon  at  S.  Paul's  Cross  on 
Feb.  9,  1589. 

The  task  before  us  is  then  to  show  what  the  Church  officially 
taught  and  enjoined  during  the  years  1534  and  1589. 

We  have  too  much  regard  for  the  sincerity  of  purpose  of  the 
prominent  Protestant  ministers  who  discussed  from  their  stand- 
point the  Lambeth  Proposals  in  the  CHURCH  Review  for  April 
last  to  bring  into  the  discussion  the  personal  views  and  predi- 
lections of  individual  Churchmen,  no  matter  how  eminent.  It 
would  be  but  waste  of  time,  and  not  advance  the  question  one 
whit.  The  retort  would  be,  "  These  views  are  no  doubt  inter- 
esting and  suggestive,  but  we  want  an  official  explanation  of 
the  Church  herself  as  to  what  she  meant  by  the  Episcopate,  —  in 


26o  The  Church  Review, 

other  words,  what  was  the  '  Historic  Episcopate  '  during  the 
years  1534  and  1589  in  England." 

We  thoroughly  agree  with  one  of  the  writers,  who  says  it  lies 
with  the  Anglican  Bishops  to  show  what  they  mean  by  the 
term  "  Historic  Episcopate."  It  is  not  for  persons  to  whom  a 
proposal  is  made  to  define  its  terms,*  but  for  the  makers  of  the 
proposal.  It  is  for  the  Anglican  Bishops  only  to  define  what 
they  meant  by  that  very  vague  term ;  still  by  an  appeal  to  any 
portion  of  history  we  may  be  able  to  find  out  the  voice  of  the 
Church  during  that  period.  And  if  we  find  that  the  Church 
during  those  very  critical  years  of  her  history  that  have  been 
selected  held  a  certain  definite  and  pronounced  view  on  the 
matter,  then  the  Church  of  the  present  day  will  be  obliged,  if 
she  wishes  not  to  break  her  ''  historic  "  continuity,  to  uphold 
that  same  view. 

At  the  outset  it  will  be  well  to  reproduce  here  two  passages 
from  the  contributions  to  the  April  CHURCH  REVIEW,  one  by  a 
Methodist,  the  other  by  a  Presbyterian  minister,  as  showing  the 
importance  logical  thinkers  outside  the  Church  attach  to  the 
period  under   review. 

If  we  mistake  not,  there  were  a  hundred  years  during  which,  in  the 
language  of  an  eminent  clergyman  of  that  Communion,  '  no  one  in  the 
Church  of  England  thought  of  calling  in  question  the  validity  of  the 
Orders  and  Sacraments  of  the  Reformed  Churches,'  which  was  presbyte- 
rial  in  ordination  and  government,  and  from  which  ministers  and  mem- 
bers were  received  to  immediate  and  equal  standing  in  the  Church  of 
England  \William  V.  Kelley,  p.  no]. 

It  is  only  since  the  days  of  Charles  I.  and  his  Prime  Minister  Laud, 
that  the  Episcopal  denomination  has  refused  to  recognize  the  validity  of 
other  ordinations  besides  its  own  \_Henry  J.  Van  Dyke,  p.  122]. 

We  reserve  our  comments  on  these  two  extracts  till  we  have 
seen  what  history  has  to  tell  us  on  the  subject. 

Let  us  precise  some  dates  for  further  reference:  — 

Papal  supremacy  abolished  in  England  in  1534. 
Accession  of  Edward  VL,  Jan.  2%}  1547. 
Accession  of  Mary,  July  6,  1553. 
Accession  of  Elizabeth,  Nov.  17,  1558. 
Bancroft's  sermon,  Feb.  9,  1589. 
If  reference  is   made  to  the  King's  Articles  of  I535>  to  the 
Declaration  of  the  Fiinctiojis  aiid  Divme  histitution  of  Bishops 
^  Some  tables  give  the  29.    At  any  rate  he  was  proclakned  on  the  31. 


The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  England.  261 

and  Priests  of  1537,  (embodied  in  the  liis/Uiilioji  of  a  Christian 
Mail,  to  the  Pc  dniiue  ct  Mifiistcrio  Saccrdotum  ct  Episcoporum 
of  1538,  to  the  Necessary  Poctrines  and  Erndition  for  a  Chris- 
tian Man  of  1543,  or  to  other  such  pubHc  documents  asserting 
the  ministerial  powers  of  dispensini,^  the  Sacraments,  of  convey- 
ing absolution,  of  binding  and  loosing,  —  in  one  word,  the  whole 
Sacramental  system,  —  the  answer  will  be  that  the  Reformed 
Church  had  not  yet  had  time  to  clear  herself  from  the  defile- 
ment of  Popery  in  the  Lj'ghth  Henry's  reign. 

With  only  one  reference  to  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  for  fear 
of  a  like  charge,  we  will  pass  on  to  the  reign  of  P^lizabeth, — 
Cranmer's  Catechism,  1548,  compiled  by  Justus  Jonas,  but 
deliberately  adopted  and  translated  by  the  Archbishop,  and 
constantly  referred  to  by  him  as  his.  own. 

And  so  the  ministration  of  God's  word,  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
did  first  institute,  was  derived  from  the  Apostles  unto  others  after  them 
by  imposition  of  hands,  and  giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  the  Apostles' 
time  to  our  days.  And  this  was  the  consecration,  Orders,  and  Unction 
of  the  Apostles,  whereby  they  at  the  beginning  made  Bishops  and  Priests, 
and  this  shall  continue  in  the  Church  even  to  the  world's  end,  .  .  . 
wherefore,  good  children,  you  shall  give  due  reverence  and  honor  to  the 
ministers  of  the  Church  .  .  .  you  shall  take  them  for  God's  ministers, 
and  the  messengers  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  For  Christ  himself 
saith  in  the  Gospel,  he  that  heareth  you.  heareth  Me,  and  he  that  de- 
spiseth  you,  despiseth  Me.  Wherefore,  good  children,  you  shall  stead- 
fastly believe  all  those  things  which  such  ministers  shall  speak  to  you 
from  the  mouth,  and  by  the  Commandment  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
And  whatsoever  they  do  to  you,  as  when  they  baptise  you,  when  they 
give  you  absolution,  and  distribute  to  you  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  these  you  shall  so  esteem,  as  if  Christ  himself,  in 
His  own  Person,  did  speak  and  minister  unto  you.  For  Christ  hath 
commanded  His  ministers  to  do  this  unto  you,  and  He  Himself  (although 
you  see  Him  not  with  your  bodily  eyes)  is  present  with  His  ministers, 
and  worketh  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  administration  of  His  Sacra- 
ments. And  on  the  other  side,  you  shall  take  good  heed,  and  beware 
of  false  and  privy  preachers,  which  privily  creep  into  cities,  and  preach 
in  corners,  having  none  authority,  nor  being  called  to  this  office.  For 
Christ  is  not  present  with  such  preachers,  and  therefore  doth  not  the 
Holy  Ghost  work  by  their  preaching,  but  their  word  is  without  fruit  or 
profit,  and  they  do  great  hurt  in  commonwealths.  For  such  as  be  not 
called  of  God,  they  no  doubt  of  it,  do  err,  and  sow  abroad  heresy  and 
naughty  doctrine  [Sermon  on  the  Keys  in  Cranmer's  Catechism,  pp. 
193  seq.     Oxford,  1829]. 


262  The  Church  Review. 

What  an  outcry  there  would  be  nowadays  of  want  of  charity, 
exclusiveness,  and  unchurching  other  Churches,  if  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  or  the  Presiding  Bishop  were  to  put  forth 
such  a  manual  with  such  plain  teaching  on  the  Apostolical  suc- 
cession and  the  validity  of  the  Sacraments  and  Absolution  in 
connection  therewith ! 

What  a  commentary  on  the  English  Ordinal  by  the  very  man 
who,  it  is  said,  wrote  the  Preface  as  it  stood  in  the  year  1588  ! 

And  even  if  Cranmer  did  not  himself  compose  the  Preface, 
he  was  the  head  of  the  commission  which  gave  us  the  Ordinal 
of  1550. 

In  1552  the  Ordinal  was  revised,  and  several  ceremonies  and 
practices  were  omitted  in  the  vain  hope  of  conciliating  the  ex- 
treme wing ;  but  no  material  alteration  was  made  in  the  wording 
of  the  service,  and  no  change  made  in  the  Preface. 

It  cannot,  therefore,  even  be  said  that  Cranmer  had  not  the 
chance  given  him  of  qualifying  the  Ordinal  or  its  Preface. 

We  come  now  to  Elizabeth's  reign,  which  commenced  on 
Nov.  17,  1558. 

In  Elizabeth's  reign  we  will  take  the  different  links  of  our 
chain  of  historical  facts  in  their  chronological  order. 

I.    THE   CONFERENCE   IN   WESTMINSTER   ABBEY. 

The  lower  House  of  Convocation  had  passed  a  resolution 
which  they  requested  the  Bishops  to  present  to  Parliament,  in 
favor  of  the  maintenance  of  the  unreformed  system,  which  had 
not  yet  been  legally  set  aside.  The  Bishops  were  therefore  the 
Marian  Bishops.  In  answer  to  this  petition,  a  conference  was 
ordered  to  be  held  between  the  Romanists  and  the  clergy  of  the 
Church  as  reformed  under  Edward  VI.  There  were  five  arti- 
cles brought  forward  in  the  petition,  —  the  first  three  concern- 
ing Transubstantiation,  the  fourth  the  Papal  Supremacy,  the 
fifth  the  inherent  authority  of  the  clergy  to  settle  matters  of 
Faith,  Sacraments,  and  discipline  apart  from  the  laity. 

The  Conference  opened  on  March  31,  1559.  Into  the  details 
of  it  we  need  not  enter.  The  discussion  on  the  mystery  of 
the  Holy  Communion  does  not  concern  us  at  present.  Under 
the  fourth  head,  the  Papal  Supremacy,  the  paper  which  Dr. 
Home  read  in  the  name  of  his  party,  and  which,  therefore,  is 
the  official  declaration  of  the  Reformed  clergy,  the  following 
proposition  is  laid  down  as  self-evident:  — 


The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  Ejigland.  26 


Faithcr:  the  Apostles'  Authority  is  derived  upon  after  ages,  and 
conveyed  to  the  bishops,  their  successors.  This  must  be  granted  by 
the  Roman  Catholics ;  with  what  color  else  can  they  press  obedience 
to  the  Pope's  decrees?  And  S.  Jerome  is  full  for  the  point.  And  S. 
Cyprian  makes  no  scruple  to  affirm  that  the  Apostles  were  all  equal 
to  S.  Teter  by  their  commission.  From  whence  it  follows  that  all 
bishops  have  the  same  authority  for  ordering  things  to  edification 
[Collier,  vol.  ii.  p.  418]. 

The  arL^nimcnt  then  goes  on  with  the  authority  of  each  na- 
tional Church  to  deal  with  matters  of  rites  and  ceremonies. 
The  Conference  broke  up,  owing  to  the  refusal  of  the  Romanists 
to  continue  the  discussion  on  the  Hnes  agreed  upon. 

The  above  proposition  covers  the  whole  ground  of  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  Apostolic  succession. 

The  Episcopal  authority  is  not  to  be  swallowed  up  by  one 
Bishop,  as  the  Romanists  would  have  it;  nor  is  it  to  be  so  dis- 
paraged as  to  belong  to  all  Orders  of  the  clergy,  as  the  Preci- 
sians, Puritans,  Presbyterians,  from  that  day  to  this  would  assert. 

The  clergy  selected  to  represent  the  Reformed  Church  of 
England  were  Richard  Cox  (afterward  Bishop  of  Ely),  Rob- 
ert Home  (afterward  Bishop  of  Winchester),  Edward  Grindal 
(successively  Bishop  of  London  and  Archbishop  of  York  and 
Canterbury),  Edmund  Guest  (successively  Bishop  of  Rochester 
and  Salisbury),  John  Aylmer  (afterward  Bishop  of  London), 
John  Jewel  (afterward  Bishop  of  Salisbury),  a  Mr.  Whitehead, ^ 
and  John  Scorey,  Bishop  of  Chichester  under  Edward  VL,  and 
afterward  Bishop  of  Hereford. 

These  were  the  men  who  were  chosen  to  represent  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  who  chose  Home  to  read 
out  on  their  behalf  the  paper  from  which  we  have  quoted. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  doctrine  of  Apostolical  succession  laid 
down  as  one  taken  for  granted  at  the  very  outset  of  Elizabeth's 
reign,  and  before  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was  passed. 

**  The  Apostles'  authority  is  derived  zcpon  after  ages,  and  con- 
veyed to  the  Bishops,  their  successorsy 

II.    ACT   OF   UNIFORMITY. 

Elizabeth's  first  Parliament  met  for  business  on  Jan.  25, 
1559,  and  passed,  on  April  2'^,  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  which 

1  The  writer  is  unable  with  the  means  at  his  command  to  trace  what  preferment 
Mr.  Whitehead  obtained,  if  any. 


264  The  Church  Review. 

ordered  the  Prayer-Book  (suppressed,  of  course,  in  Mary's  reign) 
to  be  again  taken  into  regular  use  *'  from  and  after  the  feast  of 
the  Natiuitie  of  Sainct  John  Baptist"  (June  24). 

The  Act  of  Uniformity  was  bound  up  with  the  Prayer-Book, 
not  as  a  supplement,  but  as  part  of  it,  as  can  be  seen  by  the 
table  of  contents :  — 

"  The  Contents  of  this  book. 

"  I.    An  Act  for  the  Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer. 

"  2.    A  Preface." 
And  so  on  to  21,  which  is  the  Commination  Service. 

III.    THE   ELEVEN   ARTICLES    OF    1 5  59. 

These  Articles,  which,  according  to  their  heading,  were  to  be 
read  out  by  all  the  clergy  "  at  first  entry  into  their  cures,  and 
also  after  that  yearly,  at  two  several  times,"  are  entitled :  — 

A  Declaration  of  certain  principal  Articles  of  Religion  set  out  by 
the  order  of  both  the  Archbishops  Metropolitans,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Bishops  ;  for  the  Unity  of  Doctrines  to  be  taught  and  holden  of  all  Par- 
sons, Vicars,  and  Curates,  as  well  as  in  testification  of  their  common 
consent  in  the  said  doctrine,  etc. 

Of  these  the  fourth  and  seventh  are  the  only  ones  that 
concern  us. 

IV.  Moreover  I  confess  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon 
him  any  office  or  ministry  either  ecclesiastical  or  secular,  but  such  only 
as  are  lawfully  thereunto  called  by  their  high  authorities,  according  to  the 
Ordinances  of  this  realm. 

VI L  Furthermore,  I  do  grant  and  confess  that  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Holy  Sacraments,  set  forth  by 
authority  of  Parliament,  is  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  and  that  it  is 
Catholic,  Apostolic,  and  meet  for  the  advancing  of  God's  glory,  etc. 

Taking,  then,  the  Act  of  Uniformity  enjoining  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  and  the  Eleven  Articles  set  forth  by  the  Bish- 
ops together,  what  do  we  find  the  voice  of  the  Church  to  be  in 

1559?  ^       . 

That  every  clergyman  had,  on  entry  to  his  cure,  and  twice  a 
year  thereafter,  to  declare  openly  his  belief  in  the  Scriptural, 
Catholic,  and  Apostolic  character  of  the  Prayer-Book,  and  Ad- 
ministration of  the  Sacraments,  and  further,  that  only  those  who 


The  Voice  of  the  CJiurcJi  of  England.  265 

iverc  lawfully  called  according  to  the  Ordinances  of  the  realm 
could   take   upon   themselves  any  ecclesiastical  ministry. 

If  the  seventh  Article  was  aimed  at  the  Romanists,  the  fourth 
was  directed  against  the  Puritans;  yet  both  toc^ether  proclaimed 
that  the  Church  of  l^ngland  was  Catholic  and  Apostolic,  and 
admitted  none  within  her  ministry  but  those  who  were  lawfull\- 
called  thereunto. 

The  questions  then  arise,  What  was  set  forth  by  authorit}' 
of  Parliament?  What  were  "  the  Ordinances  of  the  realm  "  b}' 
which  a  man  could  know  if  he  were  lawfully  called  to  office  or 
ministry? 

The  *'  authority  of  Parliament  "  was  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
which  made  P^lizabeth's  Prayer-Book  of  1559  a  legal  ordinance. 
If  a  man  wanted  to  ascertain  the  law  as  to  who  were  at  that  time 
the  legal  ministers  in  England,  he  would  have  to  turn  to  the 
Ordinal,  which  bore  on  its  titlepage  these  words :  — 

**  The  fourme  and  maner  of  making  and  consecratyng  bish- 
ops, priestes  and  deacons  Anno  Domini  1559"  S^Littirgical  Ser- 
vices. Queen  Elizabeth.  Parker  Society,  1847,  P-  ^7^  ^l  seq.'], 
and  the  Preface,  differing  slightly  from  that  of  the  present  Ordi- 
nal ;   both  Prefaces  are  given  side  by  side. 

The  Preface  of  1559:  — 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  holy  Scripture,  and 
ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  hath  been  these  Orders 
of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  :  which 
Offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverent  estimation,  that  no  man,  by 
his  own  private  authority,  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except 
he  were  first  called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such  qualities 
as  were  requisite  for  the  same.  And  also,  by  public  prayer,  with  imposition 
of  hands,  approved  and  admitted  thereunto. 

And  therefore,  to  the  intent  these  orders  should  be  continued  and  rev- 
erently used  and  esteemed  in  this  Church  of  England :  it  is  requisite 
that  no  man  {not  being  at  this  present  Bishops  Priest,  nor  Deacon )  shall 
execute  any  of  them,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  and  examined,  and 
admitted  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following.  And  none  shall  be 
admitted  a  deacon  except  he  be  xxi  years  of  age  at  least.  And  every 
man  which  is  to  be  admitted  a  Priest  shall  be  full  xxiv  years  old.  And 
every  man  which  is  to  be  consecrated  a  Bishop  shall  be  full  thirty  years 
old.  And  the  Bishop,  knowing  either  by  himself,  or  by  sufficient  testi- 
mony, any  person  to  be  a  man  of  virtuous  conversation  and  without 
crime,  and  after  examination  and  trial,  finding  him  learned  in  the  Latin 
tongue,  and  sufficiently  instructed  in  Holy  Scripture,  may  upon  a  Sunday 


266  The  Church  Review. 

or  Holy  Day,  in  the  face  of  the  Church,  admit  him  a  deacon,  in  such 
manner  and  form  as  hereafter  followeth. 

Present  Preface  as  revised  in  1662 :  — 

It  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  the  holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these 
Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's  Church ;  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons. 
Which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverend  Estimation,  that  no 
man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were  first  called, 
tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as'  are  requisite  for 
the  same ;  and  also  by  publick  Prayer,  with  Imposition  of  Hands,  were 
approved  and  admitted  thereunto  by  lawful  Authority.  And  therefore, 
to  the  intent  that  these  Orders  may  be  continued,  and  reverently  used 
and  esteemed,  in  the"  United  Church  of  England  and  Ireland  ;  no  man 
shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  in 
the  United  Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  or  suffered  to  execute  any 
of  the  said  Functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and  admitted 
thereunto,  according  to  the  Form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  for- 
merly Episcopal  Consecration,  or  Ordination. 

And  none  shall  be  admitted  a  Deacon,  except  he  be  Twenty-three 
years  of  age,  unless  he  have  a  Faculty.  And  every  man  which  is  to  be 
admitted  a  Priest  shall  be  full  Four-and-twenty  years  old.  And  every 
man  which  is  to  be  ordained  or  consecrated  Bishop  shall  be  fully  Thirty 
years  of  age. 

And  the  Bishop,  knowing  either  by  himself,  or  by  sufficient  testimony, 
any  Person  to  be  a  man  of  virtuous  conversation,  and  without  crime  ; 
and,  after  examination  and  trial,  finding  him  learned  in  the  Latin 
Tongue,  and  sufficiently  instructed  in  holy  Scripture,  may  at  the  times 
appointed  in  the  Canon,  or  else,  on  urgent  occasion,  upon  some  other 
Sunday  or  Holy-day,  in  the  face  of  the  Church,  admit  him  a  Deacon,  in 
such  manner  and  form  as  hereafter  followeth.    • 

The  last  words  of  the  Preface  of  1662,  ''  or  hath  had  formerly 
Episcopal  Consecration,  or  Ordination,"  were  added  because  the 
words  in  parentheses  of  that  of  1559  were  omitted  (''not  being 
at  this  present  Bishop,  Priest,  nor  Deacon  ").  '*  At  this  present  " 
applied  exactly  to  the  circumstances  of  the  present  time  in 
1559,  when  most  of  the  clergy  had  been  ordained  under  the 
Sarum,  or  other  Ordinals;  but  in  1662  *'  at  this  present"  would 
strike  every  one  as  incongruous  and  absurd.  There  could  be 
then  living  no  man  who  had  been  ordained  under  the  ancient 
Ordinals.  Whichever  Preface  is  taken,  there  is  no  loophole  for 
a  non-Episcopally  ordained  man  to  creep  into  the  sacred  min- 


The  Voice  of  l/ie  Chiu'ch  of  England.  ^^7 

istiy.  lie  must  titlicr  liavc  been  a  l^ishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon 
according  to  tlie  unreforniecl  Ordinals  or  the  Ed%vardian  ;  else  he 
must  be  admitted  '*  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following," 
to  satisfy  the  Preface  of  1559. 

He  must  be  admitted  "  according  to  the  form  hereafter  fol- 
lowing," if  he  has  not  already  received  P^piscopal  ordination  to 
fulfil  the  recjuircments  of  the  Preface  of  1662. 

What  was  "the  form  hereafter  following"  in  1559? 

For  a  Deacon,  after  the  candidate  has  declared  that  he  be- 
lieves that  he  has  been  inwardly  called  to  enter  the  sacred  min- 
istry, and  has  been  outwardly  called  according  to  the  will  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  due  order  of  this  realm,  to  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  the  Bishop  lays  his  hand  upon  him, 
saying,  — 

"  Take  thou  authority  to  execute  the  office  of  a  Deacon," 
and  thus  the  Deacon  receives  his  mission. 

For  the  Priesthood,  the  question  as  to  the  inward  call  is 
omitted,  the  candidate  having  already  entered  the  sacred  min- 
istry;  but  the  question  is  asked  as  to  whether  the  candidate 
believes  himself  to  have  received  the  outward  call,  — 

"  According  to  the  will  of  our  LoRD  Jesus  CliRlST  and  the 
Order  of  this  Church  of  England  to  the  ministry  of  Priest- 
hood?" 

The  terms  of  the  question  for  the  Diaconate  are  general,  but 
for  the  Priesthood  they  become  precise. 

The  Bishop  and  the  Priests  present  lay  their  hands  on  the 
candidate,  the  Bishop  saying,  — 

"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost :  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive 
they  are  forgiven :  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain  they  are 
retained."^ 

"  Take  thou  authority  to  preach  the  word  of  GOD,"  etc. 
.  Here,  then,  first  his  spiritual  power  is  given  him  in  the  self- 
same  words   the   Apostles   received    theirs   from    ClIRIST;    and 
secondly,  his  mission. 

In  the  office  for  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop,  the  rubric,  fol- 
lowing the  primitive  Canons,  insists  on  the  presence  of  two 
Bishops  besides  the  officiating  Bishop.  This  shows  the  anxiety 
of  the  Reformers  to  guard   against   any  possible  break  in  the 

^  The  reader  will  notice  the  difference  in  this  form  from  that  in  the  present  Prayer- 
Book,  which  is  word  for  word  the  same  as  the  first  form  in  the  American  Prayer- 
Book.     It  is  doubtful  if  the  older  form  is  not  the  stronger. 


268  The  Church  Review. 

continuation  of  the  Apostolical  succession.  The  consecration 
of  a  Bishop  by  only  one  Bishop  might  be  valid,  but  is  uncanoni- 
cal,  since  the  primitive  Church  had,  in  order  to  be  sure  of  the 
succession,  laid  down  the  rule,  and  constantly  reaffirmed  it, 
that,  — 

**  Let  a  Bishop  be  ordained  by  two  or  three  Bishops." 

*'  Let  a  Priest  or  Deacon  and  the  other  clergy  ^  be  ordained 
by  one  Bishop." —  Canons  i  and  2  of  the  Apostolical  Canons? 

The  reformers  enjoined  the  presence  of  three  Bishops  at 
least  at  every  consecration,  while  one  was  sufficient  for  the 
ordaining  of  a  Priest  or  Deacon. 

Could  a  Church  have  done  more  to  insure  the  Apostolical 
succession?  Yet  we  are  told  the  Church  of  England  is  indif- 
ferent on  the  subject. 

Again,  in  the  address  to  him  that  is  to  be  consecrated  Bishop 
the  Archbishop  is  to  say,  — 

"  Brother,  forasmuch  as  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  old  canons^ 
commandeth  that  we  should  not  be  hasty  in  laying  on  hands 
and  admitting  of  any  person  to  the  governm.ent  of  the  congre- 
gation of  Christ,"  etc. 

And  at  the  consecration,  — 

'*  Take  the  HOLY  GHOST  and  remember  thou  stir  up  the  grace 
of  God  which  is  in  thee  by  imposition  of  hands,''  etc. 

In  the  Confirmation  service  the  Bishop  claims  to  be  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  Apostles  in  their  Apostolic  functions :  — 

'*  Upon  whom  (after  the  example  of  thy  Holy  Apostles)  we 
have  laid  our  hands,"  etc. 

Throughout  the  most  solemn  parts  of  her  service,  wherever 
any  Sacramental  grace  is  to  be  given,  the  Church  directs,  be- 
yond the  possibility  of  any  person  quibbling  as  to  the  generic 
term    ''  minister,"    that   a   Priest  or  Bishop    shall    perform    the 

1  That  is,  the  minor  clergy,  including  readers,  sub-deacons,  etc, 

2  The  Apostolical  Canons  belong  to  no  later  date  than  the  end  of  the  second  or 
the  very  commencement  of  the  third  century. 

Canon  4  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  a.  D.  325,  rules, — 

"A  Bishop  ought  to  be  constituted  by  all  the  Bishops  of  the  Province,  and  should 
this  be  impracticable  on  account  of  urgent  necessity,  or  because  of  distance,  three 
at  least  should  meet  together,"  etc. 

And  so  Canon  19  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  341,  —  a  Bishop  not  to  be  obtained  without  a 
Synod  and  the  presence  of  the  Metropolitan  of  the  Province. 

The  African  code,  a.  d.  418,  collected  out  of  sixteen  councils  at  Carthage,  etc., 
rules  in  Canon  13,  ''  Three  Bishops  may  consecrate  another  Bishop  with  leave  of 
the  Primate." 


The  Voice  of  i he  Church  of  England.  269 

act,  as   in   Holy  Coninuinion,  in   the  Visitation  of  the   Sick,  and 
Confirmation. 

And  wherever  she  refers  to  her  Orders,  she  ever  refers  to 
them  as  a  Divine  institution. 

Ahiiighty  CrOD,  which  by  the^  Divine  provide7ice\\s,<\^\.  appointed  diverse 
orders  of  ministers  in  the  Chiireh  ;  and  didst  inspire  thine  Ihjly  Apostles 
to  choose  unto  this  order  of  Deaeons  the  first  martyr  S.  Stephen,  with 
Others  :  mercifully  behold  these  thy  servants  now  called  to  the  like  office 
and  administration,  etc. 

In  the  prayer  for  Priests  the  language  is,  as  we  should  expect, 
still  stronger. 

Almighty  God,  giver  of  all  good  things,  which  by  thy  Holy  Spirit  hast 
appointed  diverse  orders  of  Ministers  in  thy  Church,  mercifully  behold 
these  thy  servants,  now  called  to  the  office  of  Priesthood,  etc. 

In  the  exhortation  following,  the  Church  institutes  a  direct 
comparison  between  her  Priests  and  the  Apostles.  One  of  the 
Gospels  appointed  to  be  read  is  chapter  xx.  of  S.  John,  ending 
with  the  words  of  our  Lord,  **  And  (He)  said  unto  them:  Re- 
ceive ye  the  HoLY  Ghost.  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them,  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain  they 
are  retained." 

In  the  prayer  before  the  imposition  of  hands,  the  Bishop 
prays  for  the  candidates :  "  Thou  hast  vouchsafed  to  call  these 
thy  servants  here  present  to  the  same  office  and  ministry  "  as 
thy  "Apostles,  Prophets,  Evangelists,"  etc.  Then  follow  the 
words  of  imposition,  when  the  Bishop,  standing  in  the  place 
of  Christ,^  repeats  the  selfsame  words  as  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  — 

**  Receive  the  HOLY  Ghost:  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive 
they  are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain  they  are 
retained." 

And  when  under  that  Commission  the  Priest  absolves  indi- 
vidual penitents,  the  Church  provides  the  form, — 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  his  Church  to  absolve 
all  sinners  which  truly  repent  and  believe  in  Him  ;  of  his  great  mercy 

^  Misprint  for  "  thy."  All  these  quotations  are  taken  from  the  Elizabethan 
Prayer-Book,  as  given  in  Liturgies  and  Occasiojiai  Forms  of  Prayer  set  forth  in  the 
Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.     Parker  Society,  1847. 

2  "  Those  that  fill  the  room  of  Christ"  is  the  term  applied  to  the  Bishops  in  the 
Homilies. 


270  The  Church  Review. 

forgive  thee  thine  offences  :  and  by  his  authority  committed  to  me,  I 
absolve  thee  from  all  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Well  has  it  been  said :  — 

Orders,  then,  in  the  view  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  (historically) 
an  Apostolical  Ordinance,  but  one  both  in  itself  necessary  to  the  Church, 
and  in  its  origin  a  direct  appointment  of  Christ  Himself  by  His  Holy 
Spirit,  with  no  less  an  end  than  the  salvation  of  men's  souls,  and  with  no 
less  a  power  than  that  of  administering  Sacraments  and  conveying  instru- 
mentally  God's  gift  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  those  orders,  of  course, 
are  asserted  to  be  so,  and  none  others,  that  are  set  forth  in  the  Ordinal 
itself,  viz.,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  with  their  several  powers  as 
thus  distinguished  and  declared  —  powers  certainly  in  their  own  nature 
such  as  none  but  Almighty  God  can  give,  and  which,  therefore,  only  the 
authority  of  Almighty  God  can  ever  excuse,  much  less  sanction,  men  in 
claiming  to  bestow.  Beyond  all  power  of  gloss,  our  services  are  either 
rank  and  fearful  blasphemy,  or  they  rest  upon  the  doctrine  here  laid 
down.^ 

To  this  we  can  only  say  a  solemn  Amen. 

The  Church  recognized  in  1559  (and  recognizes  now)  as  her 
ministers  only  those  who  had  Episcopal  ordination,  and  were 
willing  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  as  embodied  in  the  Prayer- 
Book,  or  those  who  were  ordained  by  Bishops  according  to  the 
form  she  set  forth,  and  emphatically  declares  "  that  no  man 
being  at  this  present  [1559]  Bishop,  Priest,  nor  Deacon"  shall 
execute  any  ministerial  office. 

The  State  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1559  imposes  this  law 
of  the  Church  as  the  law  of  the  realm,  therefore  when  the  '*  Or- 
dinances of  the  realm"  are  invoked  in  behalf  of  the  Eleven 
Articles  which  the  Church,  through  her  Archbishops  and 
Bishops,  demands  all  her  ministers  to  assent  to,  the  Church 
invokes  her  own  ordinances. 

If  a  man  appealed  to  the  ordinances  of  the  realm,  the  ap- 
peal lay  to  the  Ordinal. 

If  a  man  appealed  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Church,  the  ap- 
peal lay  likewise  to  the  Ordinal. 

There  was  thus  a  twofold  encircling  of  the  law. 

1  Haddan's  Apostolical  Succession  in  the  Church  of  England.  Rivingtons,  1S69, 
P-  143- 


TJie  Voice  of  the  CIntrch  of  England,  271 

IV.     A    I'lIRlTAN    VOICE. 

It  may,  however,  be  said  that  to  take  the  words  of  the  I'raycr- 
Book,  the  Ordinal,  or  its  Preface,  "  in  sucli  just  and  favorable 
construction  as  in  common  equity  ou^ht  to  be  allowed  t(j  all 
human  writings  "  [present  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer],  and  to  state  that  the  "  Priest  "  of  the  Prayer-l^ook  means 
only  the  legal  Priest,  —  that  is,  the  one  ordained  according  to  the 
Ordinal  (or  according  to  the  Roman  Ordinal  and  willing  to  c(jn- 
form),  —  is  to  take  a  view  only  taken  by  those  having  "the 
Church  idea."  It  may,  therefore,  not  be  out  of  place  to  quote 
from  a  rare  and  curious  publication  entitled, — 

"  Certaiiic  Considerations  drawnc  from  the  Canons  of  the  last 
Sinod,  and  otJier  the  Kings  Eeelesiastieal  and  Statute  /aw,"  etc., 
published,  as  such  productions  mostly  were,  without  the  name 
of  author  or  printer,  in  1605. 

Under  the  section  devoted  to  "  Considerations  against  sub- 
scription to  the  booke  of  the  forme  and  manner  of  making  and 
consecrating  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,"  the  writer  argues 
against  subscription  ^  to  the  Prayer-Book  being  compulsory  on 
all  the  clergy,  and  endeavors  to  arouse  the  King's  jealousy  as 
to  his  supremacy,  and  so  accordingly  [on  pages  48,  49] 
proceeds,  — 

So  that  by  subscription  to  allow  that  provincial!  and  Diocesan  Bishops 
be  Scripturely  Bishops,  and  that  their  jurisdiction  and  power  is  a  Scrip- 
turely  jurisdiction  and  power,  is  to  deny  that  their  jurisdiction  and  power 
dependeth  upon  the  King's  jurisdiction  and  power,  or  that  by  the  King's 
gift  and  authoritie  they  be  made  Bishops. 

But  how  doeth  subscription  (you  will  say)  to  the  booke  of  Ordina- 
tion approve  the  orders  and  degrees  of  provinciall  and  diocesan  Bishops 
to  be  by  Divine  right  rather  than  by  humane  ordinance?  How?  Why 
thus  :  It  is  evident  (saith  the  preface  of  that  booke)  to  all  men  diligently 
reading  holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  times, 
there  have  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons.  Yea,  and  by  the  whole  order  of  prayer  and  of 
scripture  read,  and  used  in  the  forme  of  consecrating  of  an  Archbishop 
or  Bishop,  it  is  apparent  that  the  order  of  an  Archbishop  or  Bishop, 
consecrated  by  that  booke,  is  reputed  and  taken  to  be  of  Divine  institu- 
tion. And  therefore  seeing  the  nam.es  of  those  orders  of  ministers  must 
necessarily  be  taken  and  understood   of  such  orders  of  ministers  as  be 

^  When  we  come  to  examine  the  Articles  later  on,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  terms 
of  subscription  do  not  affect  the  present  argument. 


272 


The  Chirch  Review. 


sett  forth  and  described  in  the  body  of  that  booke,  it  must  needes  be 
intended,  that  the  ministers  by  their  subscription  should  approve  the 
orders  of  ministers  mencioned  in  that  booke,  to  be  of  Divine  institution, 
and  consequently  that  provincial!  and  diocesan  ministers  or  Bishops, 
have  not  their  essence  and  being  from  the  nomination,  gift  and  authoritie 
of  the  King.-^ 

Besides  if  we  should  understand  by  the  word  (Bishop)  him  that  hath 
the  ministrie  of  the  word  and  Sacraments,  as  the  pastor  and  teacher ; 
and  by  the  word  (Priest)  the  Presbyter,  that  is,  the  governing  elder; 
and  by  the  word  (Deacon)  the  provider  for  the  poore,  then  for  the 
ministers  to  subscribe  to  the  booke  of  Ordination  would  no  way  justifie 
those  offices,  or  degrees  of  ministers  which  ai'e  described  in  that  booke, 
but  would  indeed  utterly  subvert  and  overthrow  them. 

Because  the  orders  and  degrees  of  a  provinciall,  and  diocesan  Bishop, 
of  a  Priest  and  Deacon,  mentioned  in  that  booke,  be  of  a  farr  differing 
nature  from  those  orders,  and  degrees  of  ministers  which  are  mentioned 
in  the  Scriptures,  because  they  only  agree  in  name,  and  not  in  nature. 

Quite  so.  Is  the  voice  of  the  Church  so  very  uncertain?  Our 
friend  Master  Anon.,  and  his  co-peers.  Precisian,  Puritan,  or 
Presbyterian,  think  it  only  too  certain,  and  groan  that  the  Pref- 
ace is  not  open  to  a  double  interpretation.  The  Divine  right 
of  Episcopacy  was  no  ''  open  question,"  as  far  as  the  Church  of 
England  was  concerned,  in  the  eyes  of  these  men. 

Not  believing  in  the  Divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and 
recognizing  that  wherever,  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the 
Orders  of  the  ministry  are  referred  to,  only  those  Orders  of 
ministry  are  allowed  by  the  Church  that  are  ordained  according 
to  her  Ordinal,  Anonymous  and  his  friends  say:  '' We  cannot 
subscribe  to  such  a  book.  We  believe  in  Orders, — yea,  but 
Orders  not  oi  Divine  institution ;  and  while,  if  you  like,  w^e  will 
retain  the  names  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  those  names 
must  not  represent  the  Orders,  having  the  nature  of  the  Or- 
ders mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Ordination  of  the  Church  of 
England,  but  must  represent  Pastors,  Elders,  and  Providers 
for  the  poor." 

The  Puritan  testimony  has  been  introduced  at  this  point 
because,  although  not  published  in  the  period  under  review  at 

1  What  the  King  thought  of  this  Erastian  appeal,  we  have  already  seen  in  his 
address  to  Spotswood,  Hamilton,  and  Lamb,  on  the  eve  of  their  consecration  as 
Bishops  for  Scotland,  where  he  said  he  never  would  presume  on  such  authority, 
and  "  that  such  authority  belonged  to  none  but  our  Blessed  Saviour  and  those 
commissioned  by  Him." 


The  Voice  of  the  Chiirch  of  En  (^ I  arid.  273 

present,  it  )'et  voices  the  reasons   for  the  continual  fight  against 
subscription  to  the  Prayer-Hook  and  ()r(HnaL 

Without  staying  any  further  to  reflect  on  these  "  consider- 
ations," thougli  they  arc  wonderfully  suggestive,  we  pass  on  to 
the  next  link  in  the  historical  chain  of  evidence  as  to  what  the 
realm  and  the  Church  considered  lawful  ministers  before  the 
year  1588. 

V.   VISITATION   ARTICLES. 

The  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1559  was,  as  wc  have  seen,  not  only 
statute  law,  but  ecclesiastical  law,  being  part  of  the  13ook  of 
Common  Prayer.     One  of  its  provisions  is  as  follows:  — 

Provided  always,  and  be  it  ordained  and  enacted  by  the  authority 
aforesaid,  that  all  and  singular  Archbishops  and  Bisho])s,  and  every  of 
their  Chancellors,  Commissaries,  Archdeacons,  and  other  Ordinaries 
having  any  peculiar  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  shall  have  full  power  and 
authority,  by  virtue  of  this  act,  as  well  to  inquire  in  their  visitation, 
Synods,  and  elsewhere  within  their  jurisdiction,  or  any  other  time  and 
place,  to  take  accusation  and  information  of  all  and  every  the  things 
above  mentioned,  done,  committed,  or  perpetrated  within  the  limits  of 
their  jurisdictions  and  authority,  and  to  punish  the  same  by  admonition, 
excommunication,  sequestration,  or  deprivation  and  other  censures  and 
processes  in  like  form  as  heretofore  hath  been  used  in  like  cases  by  the 
Queen's  ecclesiastical  laws. 

We  must  also  remember  that  a  Bishop's  visitation  is  a  lawful 
court,  and  clerks  not  appearing  are  liable  to  punishments  and 
costs  [Phillimore's  Ecclesiastical  Laiv,  p.  1346]. 

Let  us  now  see  what  were  the  interrogatories  addressed  at 
sundry  visitations. 

I.  Interrogatories  m  the  injimctions  of  Parkliurst,  Bishop  of  Norwich ^ 

1561. 

1 7.  Whether  there  be  any  laye  or  temporal!  men  not  being  within 
orders,  or  children  that  hath  or  enjoyeth  any  benefice  or  spiritual  pro- 
motion. 

II.    Parker,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  1563. 

6.  Item.  Whether  there  be  any  Parsons  that  intrude  themselves  and 
presume  to  exercise  any  kind  of  ministry  in  the  Church  of  God  with- 
out imposition  of  hands  and  Ordinary  ^  authority. 

1  That  is,  authority  of  the  Ordinary,  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese. 

18 


2  74  '^^^^  Church  Review. 

III.  Farkhurst^  Bishop  of  Norwich,  1569. 
16.  Item.     Whether  ye  know  any  parson  or  vicar  that  sel  their  bene- 
fice to  meare  laymen. 

IV.   Cox^  Bishop  of  Ely  {about  15  70-1 5  74). 

Item.  Whether  there  be  any  Parsons  that  intrude  themselves  and  pre- 
sume to  exercise  any  kinde  of  ministrie  in  the  Churche  of  God  without 
imposition  of  liands  and  ordinarie  authoritie  [see  note  on  p.  139]. 

V.   Gritidal,  Archbishop  of  York,  1571. 

2^().  Whether  there  be  any  lay  or  temporall  man  not  being  within 
orders  or  any  childe  that  hath  or  enjoyeth  any  benefice  or  spirituall 
promotion. 

VI.    Grindal,  Archbishop  of  CaJiierbury,  1575-  , 

Whether  any  person  or  persons  not  being  ordered  at  least  for  a  Dea- 
con, or  hcensed  by  the  ordinary  do  say  Common  Prayer  openly  in  your 
Church  or  Chapel. 

Whether  any  Priest  or  Minister  be  come  into  this  Diocese  out  of  any 
other  Diocese  to  serve  any  cure  here  without  letters  testimonial  of  the 
ordinary  from  whence  he  came,  under  his  authentic  seal  and  hand  to 
testify  the  cause  of  his  departing  from  thence,  and  of  his  behaviour  there. 

VII.  Aylmer,  Bishop  of  London,  1577. 

10.  Whether  any  person,  or  persons,  not  being  ordered  at  least  for  a 
Deacon,  or  licenced  by  the  ordinarie,  doe  say  Common-Prayer  openly  in 
your  Church  or  chappell,  or  any  not  being  at  the  least  a  Deacon  doe 
solemnise  matrimony  or  administer  the  Sacraments  of  Baptisme,  or 
deliuer  vnto  the  communicants  the  Lordes  cuppe  at  the  celebration  of 
the  Holy  Communion,  and  what  he  or  they  be  that  doe  so. 

55.  Whether  any  new  presbiteries  ^  or  elderships  be  lately  among  you 
erected,  and  by  them  any  ministers  appointed  with  ^  [^/V]  orders  taking 
of  the  Byshop  doe  baptise,  minister  the  communion,  or  deall  in  any  func- 
tion ecclesiastical,  or  gather  any  priuate  conuenticles  whereby  the  people 
be  drawn  from  the  Church. 

VIII.   Sandys,  Archbishop  of  York,  1578. 

4.  Whether  any  Person,  or  persons,  not  being  ordered  at  the  least  for 
a  Deacon,  lycensed  by  the  Ordinary,  do  saye  Common-Prayer  openly 
in  your  Church  or  Chappell,  or  any  not  being  at  least  a  Deacon,  do  sol- 

1  We  shall  see  farther  on  that  such  a  "  presbiterie  "  had  been  established  about 
five  years  previously  at  Wandsworth. 

2  Evident  misprint  for  "  without." 


The  Voice  of  I  he  CInircJi  of  England,  275 

emnise  matrimonic  or  administer  the  Sacrament  of  Baptisme  or  dcliuer 
vnto  the  communicants  the  Lord's  cup  at  the  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Communion,  and  what  he  or  they  be  that  do  so. 

]X.     Whitgift,  Archbishop  of  Catitcrbiuy,  15  88. 

Whether  doth  any  take  on  them  to  read  lectures  or  preach,  being  mere 
lay  persons,  or  not  ordered  according  to  the  laws  of  this  realm. 

X.     Alymer,  Bishop  of  London^  1586. 

4.  Whether  any  Parson  or  Parsons  not  being  ordered  at  the  least  for 
a  Deacon  do  saye  Common  Prayer  openly  in  your  Church  Chappell,  or 
any  not  being  at  the  least  a  Deacon  do  solemnise  matrimony,  or  admin- 
ister the  Sacramentes  of  Baptisme,  or  deliuer  to  the  Communicantes  the 
Lord's  cup  at  the  celebration  of  the  holye  communion,  and  what  be  their 
names  that  do  so.-^ 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  series  of  Visitation  Articles,  commenc- 
ing within  two  years  of  the  passing  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
and  the  restoration  of  the  Prayer-Book,  and  down  to  two  years 
before  the  date  of  1588,  when  we  are  told  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  exclusive  claim  of  Episcopacy  as  a  Church  government  and 
its  connection  with  the  validity  of  the  Sacraments  was  first  pub- 
licly set  forth  ox  first  broached  ! 

There  were  two  classes  of  intruders  that  the  Church  had  to 
guard  against,  —  the  men  non-Episcopally  ordained  and  minors 
holding  the  temporalities  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  matter  unfor- 
tunately too  notorious  that  in  the  Roman  Communion  children 
had  been  preferred  to  benefices,  and  also  to  dignities  in  the 
Church.  Pope  Leo  was  abbot  of  two  monasteries  at  the  age  of 
seven,  and  at  thirteen  was  a  Cardinal.  Another  Pope,  that  of 
Geneva,  Calvin,  though  a  layman,  possessed  two  places  of  pre- 
ferment in  France.     He  afterward  sold  one  of  them. 

Against  such  abuses  was  the  question  aimed,  "  Whether  there 
be  any  childe  that  hath  or  enjoyeth  any  benefice." 

This  class  of  abuses  may  be  said  to  belong  to  the  old  order 
of  things,  while  that  of  men  not  lawfully  ordained  belonged  to 
the  new  order. 

>  All  these  Visitation  interrogatories  are  taken  from  the  Second  Report  of  the 
Comniissionei's  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  Rubrics,  Orders,  aiid  Directories  for  regulat- 
ino-  the  Course  and  Conduct  of  Public  Worship,  etc.,  according  to  the  Use  of  the  United 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  etc.,  lS6S,  with  the  exception  of  Grindal's,  for  1575, 
and  Whitgift's,  for  1 585,  which  are  taken  from  Cardwell's  Doc.  Ann.,  vol.  i.  p.  404- 
407 ;  vol,  ii.  p.  4. 


2/6  The  Church  Review. 

It  would  not,  therefore,  have  been  surprising  had  there  been 
no  interrogatories  aimed  against  this  new  class  of  intruders. 
Silence  would,  however,  have  given  no  sanction.  Does  the 
Church  recognize  the  Methodist  Episcopal  '*  Bishops  "  because 
she  nowhere  condemns  them  by  name? 

That  some  of  the  Bishops  from  1559  to  1588  may  not  have 
been  very  desirous  of  enforcing  the  law  of  the  Church  and 
realm,  and  that  they  would  have  preferred  to  connive  at  the 
intrusion  of  men  not  ordained  according  to  those  laws,  may  be 
perfectly  true,  but  even  if  such  could  be  proved  ^  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  such  proof  would  not  affect  the  law  of  the 
Church.  A  judge  may  wink  or  connive  at  an  offence  ;  but  that 
would  not  make  the  offence  the  less  an  offence.  Nay,  more, 
when  called  upon  to  act  against  the  offender,  the  judge,  no 
matter  how  he  may  dislike  the  law,  has  to  pass  sentence  accord- 
ing; to  the  law  of  the  land. 

In  some  States  there  are  laws  against  the  selling  of  liquors. 
Such  laws  are  notoriously  broken;  and  if  rumor  speaks  cor- 
rectly, with  the  knowledge  of  the  magistrates.  Yet  the  moment 
the  law  is  set  in  motion,  a  judge,  although  he  had  himself  been 
buying  liquor  from  the  offender,  would  have  to  pass  on  him  the 
sentence  provided  by  the  law.  Nor  is  non-user  a  repeal  of  a  law. 
In  the  above  Visitation  Articles,  however,  we  see  clearly  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a  cavil  that  there  was  a  widespread  desire  to 
enforce  the  law.  And  it  is  curious  to  note  the  similarity  of  lan- 
guage employed  ;  the  Interrogatory  of  the  Archbishop  of  York, 
of  1578,  is  almost  word  for  word  the  same  as  that  of  the  Bishop 
of  London,  of  1586.  It  would  really  seem  as  if  the  Bishops  had 
concerted  a  united  plan  of  defence  against  these  new  intruders. 

The  Roman  Orders  the  Church  acknowledged,  and  has  always 
acknowledged  as  valid,  and  the  law  of  the  realm  has  also 
always  done  so,  on  the  ground  of  their  having  the  Apostolical 
succession,  as  we  have  seen  Lord  Brougham  so  decide  [CHURCH 
Review  for  April,  1887,  p.  441]. 

The  words  in  parentheses  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  of  1559 
("  not  being  at  this  present  Bishop,  Priest,  nor  Deacon")  certainly 
left  it  open  to  a  Roman  clergyman  to  hold  a  cure  legally  with- 
out any  further  authority  than  the  Ordinal  gave  him.  In  this 
there  was  a  source  of  danger,  for  while  the  Church  recognized 
the  validity  of  his  Orders,  she  did  not  desire  a  Roman  Priest  to 
1  No/rc^yof  such  cases  has  yet  been  given. 


The  l^oicc  of  llic  CJuirch  of  Rjio^laiid.  277 

minister  at  licr  altars  without  first  liavini;  s(miic  ^Hiarantcc  that 
he  would  abide  b)'  her  reformed  standard  uf  d(jctrine  and 
worship. 

To  effect  this  an  Act  was  passed  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 
Elizabeth's  reii;ii.  And  now  wc  C(jme  to  the  sixth  link  in  our 
chain  of  historical  facts,  —  the  Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12,  and  the 
Articles. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  understand  the  bearings  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Act  13  liliz.  c.  12  without  a  somewhat  de- 
tailed review  of  the  various  Articles  to  which  subscription  was 
enforced  prior  to  the  date  of  1588  or  1589,  which  limits  our 
inquiries.  The  object  before  us  is  to  prove  what  was  the  voice 
of  the  Church  of  England  on  Episcopal  ordination  prior  to  the 
delivery  of  Bancroft's  sermon  on  Feb.  9,  1589.  It  is  not  our 
concern  to  show  whether  Presbyterianism  be  right  or  wrong, 
but  simply  to  prove  what  the  Church  of  England  has  said 
on  the  subject  up  to  Feb.  9,  1589.  It  is  not  our  concern 
either  to  show  what  the  English  Reformers,  or  individual  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  thought  on  the  subject,  but  plainly  to  prove 
that  the  Church  of  England,  as  a  Church,  never  accepted  as  in 
any  way  valid  the  ministrations  of  one  not  ordained  or  conse- 
crated by  a  Bishop. 

In  tracing  the  history  of  subscription  to  Articles  back  to 
their  first  origin,  it  is  to  Geneva  and  not  to  Rome  that  we  find 
the  clergy  owe  enforcement  of  subscription  to  Articles  of 
Religion.  The  Puritan  and  Presbyterian  party  who  so  bitterly 
railed  against  subscription  to  the  successive  Articles  have  to 
thank  that  foreign  prince  and  potentate,  that  "  busy  inter- 
meddler  in  foreign  Churches,"  that  "  infallible  arbiter  in  con- 
troversy," John  Calvin,  for  its  introduction  into  England. 

It  was  Calvin  who,  as  Collier  says  of  him,  '*  thought  himself 
wiser  than  the  Ancient  Church,  and  fit  to  dictate  Religion  to 
all  countries  in  Christendom,"  who  wrote  to  Protector  Somerset 
in  1548  to  inform  him  as  to  his  will  and  pleasure  concerning 
Church  and  State  in  England.  After  commending  the  Protec- 
tor   for   the  zeal  and  resolution^  he  had   shown    in    retrieving 

1  Doubtless  referring  to  his  "  zeal  and  resolution  "  in  endeavoring  to  pull  down 
Westminster  Abbey  wherewith  to  build  himself  a  palace  ;  or  to  his  unabated  "zeal 
and  resolution  "  in  tearing  down  a  stately  cloister,  two  chapels,  three  Bishop's  houses, 
and  two  Churches,  for  his  palace,  when  bought  off  by  the  Dean  with  half  the  reve- 
nues of  the  Abbey. 


2/8  The  Church  Review. 

religion,    he    unfolds    his    plan,  which  may  be  summed   up  as 
follows :  — 

1.  A  form  of  Common  Prayer  to  be  enforced  on  all  subjects 
by  the  State. 

2.  Articles  of  Religion  to  which  all  Bishops  and  Parish  Priests 
should  be  forced  to  subscribe,  and  that  no  person  should  be 
admitted  to  any  ecclesiastical  function  without  giving  solemn 
consent  to  the  doctrines  received. 

3.  Both  Papists  and  Gospellers  ^  to  be  coerced  by  the  sword. 

Here,  then,  is  the  germ  of  all  subscription  and  test  acts. 

Hooper,  Calvin's  apt  pupil,  when  he  had  so  sufficiently  over- 
come his  scruples  as  to  enable  him  to  accept  the  See  of 
Gloucester,  followed  his  master's  injunctions,  set  forth  a  series 
of  Articles  of  his  own,  and  took  very  kindly  to  enforcing  them 
on  his  clergy. 

Hardwick,  in  his  Appendix  HI.,  has  collated  the  XXXIX. 
Articles  of  1562,  with  the  preceding  formularies,  and  also  with 
these  Articles  issued  by  Hooper  to  his  clergy. 

We  now  come  to  the  sixth  head  of  our  argument. 

VI.    THE   ARTICLES. 

The  following  table  may  help  us  to  distinguish  between  these 
numerous  formularies,  and  to  understand  their  connection: 

I.   The  Articles  of  1548. 
H.  The  XLV.  Articles  of  1551-52. 
in.    The  XLII.  Articles  of  1553. 
IV.    The  XI.  Articles  of  1559. 

V.    The  XXXIX.  Articles  assented  to  by  Convocation,  Jan. 
31,  1562. 
VI.    The  Advertisements  of  1564. 
VII.    Canons    passed    by  Convocation    of  April    and    May, 

1571. 
VIII.    Act  of  13   Elizabeth,   cap.    12,  passed  April  or  May, 
1571. 
IX.    Subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  enforced  by  Par- 
liament by  said  Act. 
X.    Order  of  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  June  7,  1571. 
XI.    Parker's  Three  Articles,  June,  1571. 

1  That  is,  the  Puritan  party,  who  were  then  also  nicknamed  "  Pseudo- 
evangelicals." 


The  Voice  of  the  CJuirch  of  Eiigland.  279 

XII.    Queen's  Proclamation,  Oct.  20,  1573. 

XIII.  The    XV.    Articles    passed    by  Convocation  in   March, 

1576. 

XIV.  VVhitL^-ift's  Three  Articles,  April  15,  1584. 
XV.    The  XXIV.  Articles,  May,  1584. 

§  I.      The  Articles  r/1548. 

What  these  were,  or  how  many  they  were,  we  cannot  say. 
But  that  subscription  was  enforced  to  a  set  of  Articles  as  early 
at  least  as  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  is  beyond 
doubt,  and  possibly  in  the  very  first  year. 

Hooper,  under  date  of  Feb.  27,  1549,  writes, — 

He  (/.  e.  Archbishop  Cranmer)  has  some  Articles  of  Religion  to 
which  all  preachers  and  lecturers  in  divinity  are  required  to  subscribe 
or  else  a  licence  for  teaching  is  not  granted  them  [Hardvvick  on  the 
Articles,  London,  1881,  p.  72]. 

Archbishop  Whitgift,  writing  to  Burghley,  July  15,  1584, 
says,  — 

But  I  have  altered  my  first  course  of  dealing  with  them  for  not  sub- 
scribing only  (justifiable  by  law,  and  in  common  practice  in  the  time 
of  King  Edward,  and  from  the  beginning  of  her  Majesty's  reign  to  this 
day),  and  chosen  this  to  satisfy  your  lordship  [VVhitgift's  Works, 
Parker  Society,   1853,  vol.  iii.  p.  607]. 

Complaining  of  the  rigorous  way  in  which  subscription  had 
been  enforced,  a  Marian  Bishop,  in  a  sermon  Nov.  12,  1553, 
at  S.  Paul's  Cross,  indignantly  asks :  — 

Hathe  there  been  anye  spiritual  promotion  and  dignitie,  ye  or  almoste 
anye  meane  liuyng  of  the  Churche,  bestowed  these  few  years  paste,  but 
vppon  such  onely,  as  would  ernestly  set  furth  (either  by  preaching,  either 
by  subscriinng)  al  the  erronious  doctrine,  falsi  termed  the  Kinges 
procedinges?     [Hardvvick,  p.  222,  note.] 

If,  however,  we  are  unable  to  give  either  the  precise  wording 
or  the  number  of  these  Articles,  we  do  know  that  three  at  least 
of  them  concerned  the  Prayer- Book,  the  Ordinal,  and  the  Saci-a- 
ments,  because  it  was  to  these  three  that  Hooper  objected  in 
May,  1550,  when  nominated  to  the  See  of  Gloucester  [Hard- 
wick,  p.  92]. 

The  Prayer-Book  and  Ordinal  being  of  course  that  of  1549. 
the  First   of  Edward  VI.,  Hooper  could  not  have  objected  to 


28o  The  Church  Review, 

these  Articles  on  account  of  their  Puritanism,  for  he  was  the 
leading  exponent  of  the  Calvinistic  school  in  England,  and  the 
determined  foe  of  the  Ordinal  and  Prayer-Book. 

Here,  then,  at  the  very  outset,  we  have  a  manifestation  of  the 
Puritan  opposition  to  subscription  to  the  Articles  on  account 
of  the  Prayer-Book  and  Ordinal.  And  we  have  also  from  the 
very  beginning  of  the  Reformation  the  determination  of  the 
Church  that  those  seeking  Orders  within  her  fold  should  bind 
themselves  to  uphold  her  teaching  as  formulated  in  her  Prayer- 
Book,  and  the  form  of  Episcopal  ordination  as  laid  down  in 
her  Ordinal. 

So  Hooper,  notwithstanding  his  objections,  found  himself 
obliged  to  subscribe  to  them  in  15  51  before  he  could  be  conse- 
crated Bishop,  which  proves  that  there  must  have  >ecn  au- 
thority for  these  Articles,  else  Hooper,  anxious  as  he  was  to 
evade  subscription  to  them,  could  have  met  the  demand  to  sub- 
scribe by  a  point-blank  refusal  on  the  simple  plea  that  they  were 
unauthorized. 

Hooper  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  first  to  throw  down 
the  gauntlet  in  the  lists  against  the  Church,  on  behalf  of  Puri- 
tanism, Presbyterianism,  and  the  Parity-men,  and  summon  her 
to  open  her  gates  wide  to  them. 

From  1550  to  the  present  day  there  have  not  been  wanting 
men  to  re-echo  that  challenge. 

But  what  has  been  the  action  of  the  Church  in  reply? 

Has  she  altered  her  Prayer-Book  or  her  Ordinal? 

Has  she  relaxed  her  formularies  of  subscription  to  such  a 
degree  as  to  admit  as  her  accredited  ministers  any  non-Episco- 
pally  ordained? 

Let  the  following  brief  survey  of  the  successive  series  of 
Articles  to  those  of  1548  answer  these  questions. 

§  n.    The  XL  V.  Articles  ^/  1 5 5  1-5 2. 

These  XLV.  Articles  may  be  found  in  Latin,  taken  from 
the  State  papers  Domestic,  Edward  VL  vol.  xv.  No.  28,  signed 
by  six  royal  chaplains,  in  Hardvvick,  p.  279  seq. 

The  Privy  Council  appear  to  have  directed,  in  the  year  i55i» 
that  they  should  be  set  forth  by  public  authority.  Some  delay 
seems  to  have  occurred  in  doing  this ;  and  consequently  we  find 
the  Council  writing,  on  May  2,  1552,  to  Archbishop  Cranmer 


The  l^oicc  of  the  Chiirch  of  Eno^laud.  281 

about  the  dcloy,  and   rcciucstin<^  that  a  cop}'  (A  the  Articles  be 
forwarded  to  the  Council. 

Having  made  some  alterations  and  additions,  the  Archbishop 
forwards  a  copy  of  the  Articles,  in  September,  1552,  t(j  the 
Council.  Finally  a  copy  is  submitted  to  the  Kim;  with  the 
request  that  the  Articles  be  enforced  as  a  test. 

Six  royal  chaplains  are  thereupon  directed  to  report  (^n  the 
Articles,  and  these  chaplains,  —  Ilarley,  Bill,  llorne,  Perne, 
Grindal,  and  Knoks,  —  having  signed  a  copy,  in  token  of  their 
assent,  the  Formulary  is  then  sent,  on  November  20,  to  the 
Archbishop  for  the  "  last  corrections  of  his  judgment  and  pen." 
Four  days  after,  they  are  returned  to  the  Council,  accompanied 
by  a  request  from  Cranmer  that  all  Bishops  may  have  authority 
from  the  King*'  to  cause  all  their  preachers,  archdeacons,  deans, 
prebendaries,  parsons,  vicars,  curates,  with  all  their  clergy,  to 
subscribe  to  the  said  Articles." 

On  June  19,  1553,  in  compliance  with  the  Archbishop's  wish, 
the  royal  order  was  issued  that  the  new  Formulary  be  publicly 
subscribed.  The  number  of  the  Articles  had,  however,  been 
reduced  to  forty-two  since  November,   1552. 

As  the  XXXVIII.  of  these  XLV.  Articles  is  the  parent  of 
all  "  the  subscription  Articles  "  objected  to  by  those  who  fought 
against  Episcopal  ordination,  it  is  important  to  reproduce  it 
here. 

XXXVIII.  De  libro  Ceremonarium  Ecclesiae  Anglicanae.  Liber  qui 
nuperrime  authoritate  Regis  et  Parlamenti  ecclesiae  Anglicanae  traditus 
est,  continens  modum  et  formam  orandi  et  sacramenta  administrandi  in 
Ecclesia  Anglicana  :  similiter  et  libellus  ille,  eadem  authoritate  a^ditus, 
de  ordinatione  Ministrorum  ecclesiae,  quoad  doctrinae  veritatem  pii  sunt, 
et  quoad  ceremoniarum  rationem  salutari  Evangelii  libertati,  si  ex  sua 
natura  ceremoniae  illae  aestimentur,  in  nullo  repugnant,  sed  probe  con- 
gruunt,  et  eandem  in  complurimis  inprimis  promovent,  atque  ideo  ab 
omnibus  ecclesire  Anglicanae  fidelibus  membris,  et  maxime  a  ministris 
verbi,  cum  omni  promptitudine  animorum  et  gratiarum  actione  re- 
cipiendi,  approbandi,  et  populo  Dei  sunt  commendandi. 

Now  the  English  of  the  above  is  as  follows  (making  use  of, 
so  far  as  it  goes,  the  translation  of  the  thirty-fifth  of  the  XLII. 
Articles  as  set  forth  in   1553). 

XXXVIII.     Of  the  Book  of  Ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England. 

The  Book  which  of  very  late  time  was  given  to  the  Church  of  England 
by  the  King's  authority,  and  the  Parliament,  containing  the  manner  and 


282  The  Church  Review, 

form  of  praying  and  ministering  the  Sacraments  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, likewise  also  that  book  of  ordering  ministers  of  the  Church,  set 
forth  by  the  foresaid  authority,  are  godly  with  respect  to  the  truth  of 
their  doctrine ;  and  with  respect  to  the  matter  of  ceremonies,  if  these 
ceremonies  are  estimated  from  their  nature,  are  in  no  point  repugnant 
to  the  wholesome  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  but  are  excellently  agreeable 
thereunto,  and  further  the  same  not  a  little ;  and  therefore  by  all  the 
faithful  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  chiefly  of  ministers  of 
the  Word,  they  ought  to  be  received  and  allowed  with  all  readiness  of 
mind  and  thanksgiving,  and  to  be  commended  to  the  people  of  God. 

It  is  quite  true  that  these  XLV.  Articles  do  not  appear  to 
have  been  actually  enforced;  but  their  existence  proves  that 
even  thus  early  the  most  moderate  of  Churchmen  were  pressed 
to  defend  the  Prayer-Book  and  Ordinal  against  the  attacks  of 
those  who  would  have  neither  the  Catholic  doctrine  nor  the 
threefold  ministry. 

This  attitude  of  the  Reformers  is  well  depicted  in  the  words 
of  Cranmer,  as  quoted  by  Hardwick,  p.  68. 

Lest  any  man  should  think  that  I  feign  anything  of  mine  own  head, 
without  any  other  ground  or  authority,  you  shall  hear  by  God's  grace,  as 
well  the  errors  of  the  papist  confuted  as  the  Catholic  truth  defended  both 
by  God's  sacred  Word,  and  also  by  the  most  approved  authors  and 
martyrs  of  Christ's  Church. 

§   III.      The  XLIL  Articles  of  1553. 

We  have  seen  in  the  preceding  section  that  the  XLV.  Articles, 
having  been  reduced  by  three,  were  by  royal  order  of  June  19, 
1553,  ordered  to  be  publicly  subscribed.  The  weight  of  author- 
ity is  in  favor  of  these  Articles  having  been  agreed  to  in  Convo- 
cation prior  to  the  issue  of  the  King's  order.  The  burning  of 
the  records  of  Convocation  in  the  fire  of  1666  makes  proof  in 
such  things  a  matter  of  long  and  tedious  research  ;  but  the 
complaints  of  both  Papists  and  Puritans  prove  that  they  were 
enforced.  There  is  very  little  alteration  between  this  Formulary 
and  the  XLV.  Articles. 

The  thirty-eighth,  which  we  have  already  given  at  length,  be- 
comes the  thirty-fifth  of  the  XLIL  Articles ;  and  as  both  a  Latin 
and  English  version  was  set  forth,  we  will  content  ourselves 
with  giving  the  English. 

XXXV.  Of  the  booke  of  Praiers,  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Churche  of 
Englandc. 


TJic  Voice  of  the  CJuirch  of  England.  28 


The  Booke  whichc  of  very  late  time  was  geuen  t(j  the  ('hurchc  of 
England  l)y  the  Kinges  Aucthoritie,  and  the  Parlamente,  conteining  the 
maner  and  fournie  of  praiyng,  and  ininistring  the  sacramentes  in  the 
Churche  of  Knglande,  likewise  also  the  booke  of  ordring  ministers  of 
the  Churche,  set  foorth  by  the  forsaied  aucthoritie,  are  godlie,  and  in  no 
poincte  repugnant  to  the  holsome  doctrine  of  the  Oospel,  but  agreeable 
thereunto,  ferthering  and  beautifying  the  same  not  a  litle,  and  therefore 
of  al  faithful  membres  of  the  Churche  of  I^iglande,  and  chieflie  of  the 
ministers  oi  the  Worde,  thei  ought  to  be  received  and  allowed  with  all 
readinesse  of  mind,  and  thankes  gcuing,  and  to  bee  commended  to  the 
people  of  God  [Hardwick,  p.  340]- 

If  the  opponents  of  the  Church  and  Church  government 
were  dissatisfied  with  the  thirty-eighth  of  the  XLV.  Articles, 
they  would  not  have  less  reason  for  dissatisfaction  when  this 
thirty-fifth  Article  was  set  forth,  for  if  anything  it  is  stronger 
than  the  former  one.  Nor  would  such  persons  derive  much 
comfort  from  the  thirty-third  and  thirty-fourth,  which  are  iden- 
tical with  the  thirty-sixth  and  thirty-seventh  of  the  XLV.  Arti- 
cles ;  the  former,  on  the  Traditions  of  the  Church,  censures 
those  who  of  their  private  judgment  willingly  and  purposely 
break  the  traditions  and  ceremo7ties  of  the  Church ;  the  latter,  on 
the  Homilies,  declares  them  to  be  "  godlie  and  holsome,  con- 
teining doctrine  to  be  received  of  all  menne." 

§   IV.      The  Eleven  Articles  of  1559. 

When  we  were  considering  the  Act  of  Uniformity  (on  p.  130 
et  seq.')  we  saw  what  these  Articles  enjoined.  Since  the  XLV. 
and  XLII.  Articles,  Cranmer  had  perished  in  the  flames,  and 
the  authority  of  the  Pope  had  had  a  brief  sway.  It  would  not 
have  been  strange  to  find  that  when  fresh  Articles  were  issued 
in  Elizabeth's  reign,  they  had  been  set  forth  with  a  view  to 
greater  strictness  against  the  Papists  and  with  more  lenienc}- 
to  the  Puritans. 

Now,  if  ever,  following  the  inevitable  law  of  reaction,  there 
ought  to  have  been  hopes  for  the  minimizers  of  the  Catholic  P^aith 
and  levellers  of  the  Apostolic  ministry.  It  is  instructive  to  find 
that  the  Church  authorities  preserved  the  same  calm  and  judi- 
cious attitude  which  is  such  an  eminent  characteristic  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  Articles  of  Edward  VI.  had  not  been 
repealed  by  any  express  statute  in  Mary's  reign,  but  they  had 
nevertheless  been  considered  as  abrogated  by  the  restoration  of 


2  84  The  Church  Review. 

Popery,  and  in  this  view  Queen  Elizabeth  and  Archbishop 
Parker  seem  to  have  concurred.  Not  waiting  for  the  readop- 
tion  of  so  elaborate  a  series  of  Articles  as  the  XLII.  of  Ed- 
ward's reign,  though  such  a  series  was  being  actually  under 
consideration,  and  was  soon  to  be  published  as  the  XXXIX. 
Articles  of  1562,  there  issued  from  the  royal  press,  "by  order 
of  both  Archbishops,  Metropolitans,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Bishops,"  the  Eleven  Articles  of  1559. 

Insisting  that  the  Papist  should  grant  that  the  Prayer-Book 
was  *'  Catholic  and  Apostolic,"  it  provided  in  more  emphatic 
terms  that  the  Puritan  should  confess  that  it  was  not  lawful  for 
him  to  take  any  ecclesiastical  ministry  upon  himself  until  called 
thereto  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  realm. 

What  the  laws  of  the  realm  were  we  have  seen,  when  deal- 
ing with  these  Eleven  Articles  (on  p.  136).  To  quote  our  own 
words :  — 

If  a  man  appealed  to  the  ordinances  of  the  realm,  the  appeal 
lay  to  the  Ordinal. 

If  a  man  appealed  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Church,  the 
appeal  lay  likewise  to  the  Ordinal. 

The  Eleven  Articles  were,  as  we  have  already  observed, 
to  be  read  in  public  by  all  the  clergy  at  their  first  entry  into 
their  cures,  and  twice  a  year  thereafter.  They  thus  concerned 
the  continual  practice  and  teaching  of  the  clergy  /  and  moreover, 
while  the  subscription  of  any  Formulary  was  effected  only  be- 
tween a  minister  and  his  Ordinary,  the  public  reading  in 
Church  of  a  declaration  worded  throughout  in  the  first  person 
singular  and  ending  with  this  exhortation,  "  I  exhort  you  all  of 
whom  I  have  cure,  heartily  and  obediently  to  embrace  and 
receive  the  same,"  could  not  fail  to  act  as  a  check  on  the 
clergy,  since  the  laity  could  easily  perceive  whether  the  daily 
teaching  of  the  minister  was  the  same  as  that  embodied  in  the 
confession   made  under  the   "  Eleven  Articles." 

§  V.    The  XXXIX.  Articles  of  1^62. 

Of  these  Articles  nothing  need  here  be  said,  as  we  have  not 
to  deal  with  their  doctrinal  significance,  but  only  with  their  en- 
forcement by  subscription.  Subscription  was  not  enforced  till 
1 57 1,  on  reaching  which  date  we  will  see  what  these  Articles 
have  to  tell  us  on  the  matter  in  hand.     (See  §  IX.  p.  157.) 

It   may,  how^ever,  be  as  well  to  note  here  that  all  Church  au- 


The  Voice  of  the  Chicrch  of  EiiglcDid. 


'S 


thoritics  —  yVrchbishops,  Bishops,  Convocation,  or  I'Lcclcsiastical 
Commissioners  —  in  their  references  to  these  Articles  ahvays  refer 
to  tliem  as  the  Articles  of  1562  ;  and  never  even  when  cnfcjrcin^ 
subscription  do  they  refer  U)  the  Statute  Act  of  i  571,  which  by 
Parliamentar)-  law  made  subscription  compulsory  on  all  the 
cleri^y,  but  always  to  the  Articles  as  passed  by  the  Convocation 
of  1562.  The  reasons  of  this  silence  we  will  examine  later  on, 
under  §  IX.,  so  as  to  keep  the  whole  subject-matter  under  one 
head. 

According  to  Soames,  these  Articles  were  passed  on  January 
31,  the  Bishops  seem  to  have  subscribed  to  them  on  January  29, 
and  the  principal  members  of  Convocation  on  Feb.  5,  1562-63. 

§  VI.    The  Advertisements  of  1564. 

In  the  year  1563,  and  before  the  same  Convocation  that 
passed  the  Articles  commonly  called  the  Articles  of  1562,  there 
were  submitted  seven  Articles  for  adoption  by  the  Lower 
House. 

Number  i  was  against  responsive  singing,  or  reading,  of  the 
Psalms,  and  against  all  musical  instruments.  2.  Against  lay 
Baptism  and  the  sign  of  the  Cross.  3.  Against  kneeling  at  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  4.  That  the  copes  and  surplices  be  laid  aside, 
and  that  the  habit  of  the  desk  and  the  pulpit  be  the  same. 
5.  Against  gowns  and  caps.  6.  That  the  clause  in  Article  33 
of  the  Articles  of  1552  against  breaking  the  traditions  and  cere- 
monies be  considerably  softened  down.  .  7.  Against  Saints' 
days.      [See  Collier's  Eeclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  486.] 

Although  after  considerable  debate  these  Articles  w^ere  much 
modified,  and  reduced  to  six,  yet  they  did  not  succeed  in  pass- 
ing. The  Puritan  party,  notwithstanding  their  defeat  in  Con- 
vocation, continued  to  set  the  law  at  defiance  in  their  ministra- 
tions, and  to  uphold  their  conduct  in  the  pulpit.  Consequently 
the  Queen,  on  Jan.  25,  1564,  wrote  to  the  Primate,  as  head 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  complaining  of  these  ir- 
regularities "  as  tending  to  breed  some  schism  or  deformity  in 
the  Church."  As  the  immediate  consequence  of  that  letter 
the  Advertisements  were  issued  in  March.  The  chief  provisions 
of  these  Advertisements  were,  so  far  as  they  concern  our 
inquiry:  — 

That  all  preachers  should  be  "  examined  for  their  conformity 
in  unity  of  doctrine." 


286  The  Church  Review, 

That  all  licenses  issued  prior  to  the  first  of  March  be  void, 
but  be  renewed  to  meet  persons. 

That  the  celebrant,  gospeller,  and  epistoler  use  copes,  the  sur- 
plice to  be  used  in  other  ministrations. 

That  no  ministers  be  "  admitted  to  serve  without  testimonye 
of  the  diocesan  from  whence  they  come." 

Concerning  these  Advertisements,  Cardw^ell  rightly  states  that 
the  point  at  issue  was  not  the  necessity  of  wearing  the  same 
apparel  that  was  used  by  the  Romanists,  *'  but  the  real  point  at 
issue  being,  and  soon  afterwards  showing  itself  to  be,  the  right 
principle  of  Church  government"   \_Doc.  Ann.  vol.  i.  p.  321]. 

It  is  for  that  reason  that  a  survey,  no  matter  how  brief,  of  the 
contest  of  the  Puritans  against  the  Ordinal  would  be  incomplete 
without  some  reference  to  the  Advertisements.  By  recalling  the 
licenses,  and  examining  the  applicants  as  to  their  doctrine 
before  granting  fresh  ones,  it  was  hoped  to  silence  the  depravers 
of  the  Prayer-Book  and  Ordinal. 

§  VII.   TJie  Canons  of  1571. 

The  Convocation  of  1571  which  sat  between  April  3  and  May 
30  passed  a  book  of  Canons  in  April.  The  date  of  April  can 
be  fixed  by  means  of  the  Canon  on  Bishops.  One  of  the  enact- 
ments of  that  Canon  was  that  all  licenses  should  be  recalled 
before  the  September  following.  In  other  words,  all  licenses 
issued  before  the  passing  of  the  Canon  were  to  be  considered 
void.  Now,  the  order  issued  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Commis- 
sioners on  June  7,  1571,  in  consequence  of  these  Canons,  in- 
structs church-wardens  to  see  that  the  minister  "  be  such  as  is 
licensed  to  preach  after  the  first  of  May  last,"  hence  the  Canons 
must  have  been  passed  before  the  first  of  May,  1571. 

The  instructions  of  the  Bishop  of  Ely  to  his  Chancellor,  under 
date  of  August  28,  1571,  are  to  the  same  efi'ect. 

It  was  further  ordained  that  all  preachers  having  licenses  to  preach 
at  any  time  before  the  last  day  of  April  last  must  render  up  the 
old  license  unto  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  etc.  [Strype's  Parker, 
vol.  ii.  p.  61]. 

Before  the  applicant  could  obtain  a  fresh  license  he  had  to 
subscribe  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of  1562  and  promise  to  main- 
tain and  defend  the  doctrine  in  them  contained,  as  being  most 
agreeable  to  the  Word  of  GOD. 


TJie  Voice  of  the  Cliurch  of  England.  287 

Besides  this  clause  ordcrini;  tlie  recall  of  licenses  so  that  doc- 
trine inclining  to  Rome  or  Geneva  might  not  be  taught  in  the 
pulpit,  there  were  two  other  injunctions  laid  on  Bishops  in  this 
Canon  Dc  Rpiscopis  which  need  mention. 

The  Bishops  were  not  to  lay  hands  on  any  that  were  brought 
up  in  husbandry,  or  some  other  mean  trade  or  calling,  but  all 
the  candidates  should  well  understand  the  Latin  tongue,  and  be 
conversant  in  the  Scriptures. 

That  they  should  suffer  none  who  by  an  idle  name  called 
themselves  readers,  and  received  not  imposition  of  hands  in  the 
ministry  of  the  Church. 

Episcopus  neminem,  qui  se  otioso  nomine  lectorem  vocet,  et  manus 
impositionem  non  acceperit,  in  ecclesiae  ministerio  versari  patietur. 

These  provisions  were  aimed  against  the  Puritans  and  those 
who  denied  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal  ordination.  The 
country  was  being  filled  with  ignorant  men  who,  as  the  Arch- 
bishop had  said,  "  sought  under  cover  of  reformation  the  ruin 
and  subversion  both  of  learning  and  religion." 

Tailors,  bricklayers,  and  such  like  set  themselves  up  as  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind,  and  justified  their  conduct  by  the  text 
Spiritns  iibi  vnlt  spirat} 

Nor  was  any  person  to  be  received  into  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  in  any  Diocese,  without  dimissory  letters  from  the 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  he  was  leaving.  This  clause  would  not 
only  serve  the  purpose  of  preventing  excommunicated,  deposed, 
or  suspended  clerics  from  entering  a  Diocese  as  clerks  in  good 
standing,  but  would  enable  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  he  sought 
to  enter  to  ascertain  not  only  as  to  the  moral  fitness  of  the  ap- 
plicant, but  also  as  to  his  orthodoxy  in  doctrine  and  conformity 
to  the  Prayer-Book  and  Ordinal.  What  perhaps  was  still  more 
important,  it  would  be  a  means  of  discovering  such  men  as  had 
forged  letters  of  Orders. 

At  the  end  of  the  Canon,  "  ^ditui  ecclesiarum  et  alii  selecti 
viri,"  mention  is  made  of  the  celebrated  Book  of  Advertisements, 
about  which  there  has  of  late  years  been  so  considerable  a  dis- 

1  "  A  bricklaer  taken  upon  him  the  office  of  preachyng,  affirmed  he  might  lawfully 
do  it,  thoush  he  were  not  called  thereonto  by  ye  Church.  For  Spiritns  ttbi  vnlt 
spiral.''^  Huggard's  Displaying  of  the  Protestantes,  sign  B.  iii.  as  quoted  by  Hard- 
wick,  p.  102,  note. 

One  of  the  Kentish  ministers  cited  before  Archbishop  Whitgift  in  15S3  hasagrvinst 
his  name,  "  No  graduate,  lately  a  tailor." 


288  The  Church  Review. 

cussion,  and  of  which  we  made  a  cursory  survey  in  the  last 
section. 

By  this  and  other  Synods,  as  Cardwell  rightly  states,  the  Ad- 
vertisements were  always  considered  as  having  the  most  perfect 
authority.  The  Advertisements,  like  these  Canons  of  1571, 
were  not  formally  sanctioned  by  the  Queen.  When  dealing  with 
the  enforced  subscription  to  the  Articles  under  Section  IX.,  we 
will  recur  to  this  apparent  lack  of  royal  sanction. 

The  Canons  of  1 571  were  issued  in  Latin,  unnumbered,  but 
with  a  heading  containing  the  subject-matter.  An  edition  in 
English  was  also  shortly  put  out;  as,  however,  the  Latin  seems 
to  have  been  the  only  authoritative  edition,  or  at  any  rate  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  only  form  in  which  they  were  passed  by 
Convocation,  the  .Canon  on  preachers  is  given  in  full  in  Latin. 

CONCIONATORES. 

Lnprirais  vero  videbunt,  ne  quid  unquam  doceant  pro  concione 
quod  a  populo  religiose  teneri  et  credi  velint,  nisi  quod  consentaneum 
sit  doctrinse  veteris  aut  novi  Testamenti,  quodque  ex  ilia  ipsa  doctrina 
Catholici  patres,  et  veteres  Episcopi  collegerint,  et  quoniam  articuli  illi 
religionis  Christianse  in  quos  consensum  est  ab  Episcopis  in  legitima 
et  Sancta  Synodo,  jussa  atque  authoritate  serenissimae  Principis  Eliza- 
bethse  convocata  et  celebrata,  baud  dubie  collecti  sunt  ex  sacris  libris 
veteris  et  novi  Testamenti,  et  cum  coelesti  doctrina,  qu^e  in  illis  con- 
tinetur,  per  omnia  congruunt ;  quoniam  etiam  liber  publicarum  precum; 
et  liber  de  inauguratione  Archiepiscoporum,  Episcoporum,  Presby- 
terorum,  et  Diaconorum,  nihil  continent  ab  ilia  ipsa  doctrina  alienum  ; 
quicunque  mittentur  ad  docendum  populum,  illorum  articulorum  author- 
itatem  et  fidem,  non  tantum  concionibus  suis  sed  etiam  subscriptione 
confirmabunt.  Qui  secus  fecerit,  et  contraria  doctrina  populum  tur- 
baverit  excommunicabitur  [Cardwell's  Synodalia,  Oxford,  1842,  vol.  i. 
p.  126]. 

Or  in  English  :  — 

PREACHERS. 

First,  however,  they  shall  take  care  not  to  teach  anything  for  a  ser- 
mon, which  they  wish  the  people  religiously  to  hold  and  believe,  except 
what  is  agreeake  to  the  doctrine  of  the  old,  or  new  Testament,  and 
which  the  Catholic  Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  gathered  from  that 
very  doctrine  ;  and  since  these  Articles  of  the  Christian  Religion,  to 
which  the  Bishops  agreed  m  a  lawful  and  holy  Synod  which  by  com- 
mand and  authority  of  the  most  serene  Lady  Elizabeth  was  convoked 
and  held,  were  undoubtedly  gathered  from  the  Sacred  books  of  the  old 
and  new  Testament,  and  agree  throughout  with  the  Heavenly  doctrine 


The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  England.  289 

contained  in  those  Testaments  :  Since,  moreover, ///^  Book  of  Conunoii 
Prayer,  and  the  Book  of  the  Ordination  of  Bishops,  Priests.,  and  Deacons 
contain  nothing  at  variance  with  this  very  doctrine^  whoever  shall  he  sent 
to  teach  the  people  shall  confirm  the  authority  and  trutii  of  these  Arti- 
cles, not  only  in  their  Sermons,  but  also  by  subscription. 

He  who  shall  have  done  otherwise,  and  who  shall  have  disturbed  the 
people  by  contrary  teaching,  shall  be  excommunicated. 

Here,  again,  the  Canon  on  Preachers  runs  contrary  to  the  cry 
of  the  Puritans,  who  maintained  that  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  especially  the  Ordinal,  was  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

§  Vni.  Act  13   Elizabeth,  c.   12. 

Under  this  Act,  which  received  the  royal  assent  May  29, 
1 57 1,  it  was  required  that  — 

'  Every  one  under  the  degree  of  a  Bishop,  which  doth  or  shall  pretend 
to  be  a  priest  or  minister  of  God's  holy  Word  and  Sacraments  by  reason 
of  any  other  form  of  mstitution,  consecration,  or  ordering  than  the  form 
set  forth  by  Parliament  in  the  time  of  the  late  King  of  most  worthy 
memory.  King  Edward  Sixth,  or  now  used  in  the  reign  of  our  most  gra- 
cious Sovereign  lady,  before  the  feast  of  the  Nativity  of  Christ,  next 
following,  shall  in  the  presence  of  the  Bishop,  or  guardian  of  the  spirit- 
ualities of  some  one  Diocese,  where  he  hath,  or  shall  have  Ecclesiastical 
living,  declare  his  assent,  and  subscribe  to  all  the  Articles  of  Religion, 
which  only  concern  the  confession  of  the  true  Christian  faith,  and  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  comprised  in  a  book  entitled  — 

and  here  follows  the  title  of  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of  1562. 

This  Act,  therefore,  barred  Roman  Priests  and  Deacons  from 
holding  a  cure  without  first  assenting  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles; 
since  the  only  Priests  or  Ministers  or  Deacons  who  could  pre- 
tend to  have  received  any  form  of  legal  institution,  consecrating, 
or  ordering  than  that  set  forth  under  Edward  VI.  or  Elizabeth 
were  those  who  had  been  so  ordained  under  the  reign  of  Mary, 
and  who  of  course  under  that  reign  were  the  o?ily  legal  Priests 
or  Ministers  or  Deacons. 

Henceforth,  then,  the  two  side  avenues  to  the  Church's 
cures  were  barred,  the  Roman  and  the  Puritan. 

Even  this  very  Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12,  further  enacted  that: 

No  person  now  permitted  by  any  dispensation  or  otherwise,  shall  retain 
any  Benefice  with  Cure,  being  under  the  age  of  one  and  twenty  years,  or 

19 


290  The  Church  Review. 

not  bein^^  a  Deacon  at  least,  and  none  shall  be  made  Minister,  or  ad- 
mitted to  preach  or  administer  the  Sacraments,  being  under  the  age  of 
twenty-four  years,  nor  unless  he  bring  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  testi- 
monial of  his  regular  life  and  of  his  professing  the  Doctrine  expressed 
in  the  said  Articles.  .  .  .  And  lastly  all  Admissions  to  Benefices,  Insti- 
tutions, and  Inductions  contrary  to  the  form  and  provision  of  this  Act, 
and  all  Tolerations,  Dispensations,  Qualifications,  and  Licenses  whatso- 
ever to  be  made  to  the  contrary  hereof  shall  be  void  in  Law. 

The  Puritans,  who  were  ever  on  the  watch  how  to  avoid  sanc- 
tioning the  Ordinal,  seized  hold  on  one  word  in  the  first  part 
of  this  Act,  the  word  '*  only,"  and  under  cover  of  that  word 
refused  to  sign  the  XXXIX.  Articles.  Their  plea  was  that 
they  had  merely  to  sign  those  Articles  "  which  only  concern  the 
true  Christian  Faith  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments,"  and 
that  therefore  by  this  limitation  all  of  the  XXX'IX.  Articles 
which  related  to  the  Homilies  (which  they  detested,  owing  to 
their  strong  doctrine),  to  the  Ordinal,  and  to  the  Authority  of 
the  Church,  were  not  to  be  included  in  the  Articles  presented 
them  for  their  subscription  [Collier,  p.  530]. 

The  word  *'only"  in  the  text  of  the  Act  of  course  referred 
to  all  the  Articles,  and  was  used  in  an  apologetic  or  explanatory 
sense  of  the  contents  of  the  whole  of  these  Articles,  and  was 
in  that  first  section  of  the  Act,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
aimed  at  the  Roman  Catholics.  It  was  as  much  as  to  say,  "  We 
do  not  want  you  to  declare  your  Orders  to  be  invalid,  or  to  make 
any  other  Confession  of  Faith  in  signing  these  XXXIX.  Articles, 
for  after  all,  they  only  contain  a  Confession  of  the  Christian 
Faith,  and  the  Doctrine  of  the   Holy  Sacraments." 

By  raising  a  quibble  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  ''  only," 
and  maintaining  that  the  law  did  not  require  them  to  do  so,  the 
Puritans  refused  to  subscribe  to  all  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  thus 
appealing  from  one  Act  to  another  Act. 

As  a  conclusion  to  these  remarks  on  this  statute  the  words  of 
Sir  Edward  Coke,  as  quoted  by  Collier  [p.  536],  are  singularly 
appropriate. 

And  tliat  this  (/.  e.  Subscription  to  all  the  Articles  without  exception) 
was  the  meaning  of  the  Legislature  is  further  made  good  by  Sir  Edward 
Coke's  authority,  who  positively  affirms,  That  the  Subscription  required 
by  the  Clergy  takes  in  all  the  Nine  and  thirty  Articles.  And  that  by 
this  Statute  the  Delinquent  is  disabled  and  deprived,  ipso  facto.  He 
adds  further :  — 


The  Voice  of  the  CInirch  of  England,  291 

'That  when  one  Smith  subscribed  the  Nine  and  thirty  Articles  with  this  addition 
(so  f^xr  forth  as  the  same  were  agreeable  to  the  word  of  GoD)  't  was  resolved  by  Sir 
Christopher  Wray,  Chief  Justice  in  the  King's  Ijench,  and  all  the  Judges  of  Eng- 
land, that  this  subscription  was  not  according  to  the  Statute  of  13  Elizabeth,  cap.  12 
[Coke's  Reports,  liber  6,  fol.  29,  Green's  case]. 

Because  the  Statute  recjuired  an  absolute  Subscription,  whereas  this 
Subscription  made  it  con(Utional.  And  further,  this  Act  was  made  for 
avoiding  Diversity  of  Oi)inions,  &c.  liut  Ijy  this  qualification  or  addi- 
tion, the  party  might  by  his  own  private  opinion  take  some  of  the  Arti- 
cles to  be  against  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  so  by  this  means  diversity  of 
opinions  would  not  be  avoided.  And  thus  the  scope  of  the  Statute  and 
the  very  Act  itself  made  touching  Subscription  would  be  of  none  effect. 
Thus  far  Sir  Edward  Coke  \_Institutes,  part  iv.  fol.  323,  324]. 

From  the  days  of  Elizabeth  to  those  of  Victoria  the  Puritans 
have  always,  possibly  owing  to  what  Archbishop  Parker  called 
their  "  Germanical  natures,"  shown  a  singularly  convenient  in- 
ability to  understand  plain  English. 

§  IX.  Subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  enforced  by  Parlia- 
ment, 1 571. 

By  the  Act  13  Eli::,  c.  12,  subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Arti- 
cles as  passed  by  Convocation  in  1562  was,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  made  by  Parliament  compulsory  on  all  the  clergy. 

There  is  little  need  to  say  much  here  concerning  these  Arti- 
cles. Convocation  in  1553  had  passed  XLII.  Articles,  as  we 
have  seen,  which  were  reduced  to  XXXIX.  by  the  Convocation 
of  1562,  and  now  in  15  71  Parliament  enforces  subscription  to 
them.  The  XXXIX.  Articles  are  thus  made  not  only  the  law 
of  the  Church,  but  the  law  of  the  realm.  They  are  not  a 
creed,  but  partake  more  of  the  nature  of  a  declaration  of  princi- 
ples affecting  the  chief  matters  of  controversy  then  existing. 
The  popular  conception  of  them  is  certainly  very  curious. 
They  have  been  called  by  some  outside  of  the  Church  the 
Creed  of  the  Church;  whereas,  of  course,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land recognizes  but  the  Three  Creeds. 

Protestants  of  all  stripes  have  in  latter  times  spoken  of  the 
XXXIX.  Articles  as  if  they  were  so  many  mysterious  charms 
by  which  the  **  Protestant  religion  "  could  alone  be  saved. 

They  seem  to  have  derived  as  much  comfort  from  the  XXXIX. 
Articles  as  the  old  woman  did  from  the  repetition  of  "  that 
there  soothing  word  '  Mesopotamia'  "  in  her  parson's  sermons. 
They  appear  to  have  looked  upon  them  as  the  only  comforting 


292  The  Church  Review, 

words  between  the  covers  of  the  Prayer-Book.  Their  ancestors 
knew  better;  for  the  Low  Church  party  in  the  Church  of 
England  is  tJic  oily  party  which  has  ever  endeavored  to  get  rid 
of  the  XXXIX.  Articles!     Not  once,  but  repeatedly. 

Another  misconception  is  that  the  Articles  contain  the  high- 
est form  of  Calvinism,  whereas  the  truth  is  that  the  Articles 
which  did  contain  Calvinistic  doctrine  were  what  are  called 
**  the  Lambeth  Articles,"  and  that  notwithstanding  the  repeated 
attempts,  especially  the  two  determined  ones  of  1595  and  1603, 
to  foist  them  on  the  Church,  the  Church  utterly  repudiated 
them. 

The  clause  in  Article  XX.,  *'  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree 
Rites  or  Ceremonies,  and  authority  in  controversies  of  Faith," 
which  the  Puritans,  Presbyterians,  etc.,  so  strongly  objected  to, 
does  not  appear  in  some  of  the  copies  of  the  Articles  issued 
between  1563  and  1571.  This  was  one  of  those  Articles  which 
they  endeavored  to  shirk,  on  the  quibble  already  noticed,  that 
it  "  only  concerned  the  confession  of  the  true  Christian  Faith 
and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments." 

To  us  there  seems  very  little  doubt  that  the  Puritans  resorted 
to  one  of  their  favorite  weapons,  —  falsification,  —  and  that  it  was 
they  who  caused  copies  of  the  Articles  to  be  printed  with  the 
omission  of  the  Article  they  detested. 

Archbishop  Laud  did  not  scruple,  when  absurdly  accused  of 
having  added  the  clause,  to  retort  the  charge  of  falsification  on 
the  Puritan  party. 

**  I  do  openly  here  in  the  Star  Chamber  charge  upon  that 
pure  Sect  this  foul  corruption  of  falsifying  the  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Let  them  take  it  off  as  they  can "  [as 
quoted  by  Collier,  vol.  ii.  p.  487]. 

Heylin,  in  History  of  Presbyterianism  [p.  283],  gives  another 
instance  of  falsification  which  occurred  about  the  same  date. 
Since  editions  of  the  Prayer-Book  were  issued  in  which  two 
services  opposed  by  the  Puritans,  the  order  for  private  baptism 
and  confirmation  of  children  — 

was  quite  omitted,  which  grand  omissions  were  designed  to  no  other 
purpose,  but  by  degrees  to  bring  the  Church  of  England  into  some 
conformity  to  the  desired  orders  of  Geneva. 

The  opinion  of  the  patient  and  erudite  Strype  is  also  against 
the  Puritans  in  the  matter  of  the  omitted  clause. 


The  J'oice  of  iJic  Church  of  England.  293 

So  that  at  Icn-th  an  edition  tliat  ai)i)carc(l  abroad  in  the  same  year, 
printed  by  Jolni  Day,  wanting  the  clause,  liath  been  judged,  and  that 
upon  good  grounds,  to  be  spurious  ;  and  the  rasure  of  the  Church's 
power  and  authority,  to  be  owing  to  the  interest  and  cunning  of  a  faction 
that  then  prevailed  much,  and  had  not  a  few  favourers  at  court,  which 
indeed  we  see  abundantly  in  this  i)resejit  history,  and  by  the  labours  and 
troubles  our  Archbishop  '  continually  underwent  on  that  account  [Strype's 
Life  of  Parker,  vol.  ii.  p.  56.     Oxford,  1S21]. 

Parallel  with  this  is  the  constant  endeavor,  past  and  present, 
to  prove  the  seven  letters  of  S.  Ignatius  and  the  Epistles  to 
Saints  Timothy  and  Titus  forgeries,  on  account  of  their  uncom- 
fortable teaching  on  Apostolical  succession. 

Before  leaving  these  XXXIX.  Articles  a  word  must  be  said 
why  the  Church  authorities  have  so  unanimously  passed  over 
the  Parliamentary  Statute  of  1571,  which  is  always  cited  as  hav- 
ing given  legality  to  the  enforcement  of  subscription  to  those 
Articles.  This  silence  on  the  part  of  Church  authorities  appears 
so  strange  to  many  writers  that  all  kinds  of  explanations  for  it 
have  been  given,  some  of  them  very  far-fetched.  To  discuss 
the  whole  matter  fully  would  require  a  whole  article  in  the 
Church  Review,  nor  would  it  be  an  unprofitable  task,  as  there 
seems  to  be  so  much  misconception  on  the  point.  Briefly,  how- 
ever, the  reason  seems  to  be  that  the  Church  authorities  con- 
sidered the  Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12  superfluous,  so  far  as  it  gave 
legality  to  subscription  to  the  Articles.  They  considered  that 
they  had  legal  power  inherent  in  themselves  to  enjoin  and  en- 
force subscription  to  whatever  Articles  they  chose  to  put  for- 
ward, without  asking  **  by  your  leave  "  of  the  Parliament.  This 
appears  to  the  writer  the  simple  reason,  and  the  true  one. 

Accordingly,  when  the  Convocation  of  157 1  met,  although  the 
Parliamentary  Statute  was  not  then  passed,  the  Primate  ordered 
every  member  of  Convocation,  on  penalty  of  exclusion,  there 
and  then  to  sign  the  Articles  of  1562.  The  Articles  were  there- 
upon read  out  aloud,  and  every  member  of  both  houses  sub- 
scribed to  them. 

The  Canons  of  15  71,  enjoining  subscription  to  the  Book  of 
Articles  of  1562,  as  we  have  seen,  contain  no  allusion  to  the 
statute  then  being  passed  through  Parliament. 

Parker's  Three  Articles  of  June,  1 57 1,  enjoined  subscription 
to  the  Book  of  Articles  of   1562;    no  reference  again  to    the 
1  That  is,  Archbishop  Parker. 


294  The  Church  Review, 

statute  just  passed,  and  assented  to  by  the  Queen.  The  XV. 
Articles  passed  by  Convocation  in  1576  likewise  enjoin  subscrip- 
tion to  the  Articles  of  1562,  with  no  reference  to  the  statute; 
and  so  Whitgift's  Three  Articles,  the  XXIV.  Articles  of  1584, 
and  Canon  36  of  the  Canons  of  1604,  in  force  till  1865,  all 
require  subscription  to  the  Articles  of  the  Convocation  of  1562, 
and  never  allude  to  the  Statute  of  1 571. 

The  same  reason  actuated  the  Queen  in  refusing  her  formal 
sanction  to  the  Advertisements  of  1564,  to  the  Canons  of  1571, 
and  to  the  successive  steps  which  the  Bishops  or  Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners  took  for  the  enforcement  of  conformity  to  the 
Prayer-Book  or  Ordinal.  However  keen  the  Queen  might  be 
after  money,  and  however  scandalously  she  may  have  acted  in 
appropriating  Church  revenues,  she  was  not  so  Erastian  as  even 
some  of  the  Bishops.  The  title  ''  Head  of  the  Church"  was  dis- 
tasteful to  her,  as  arrogating  an  honor  due  to  CHRIST  alone. 
She  considered  that  whatever  Convocation  did  touching  doc- 
trine, or  the  discipline  of  the  clergy.  Parliament  had  no  inherent 
right  to  meddle  with,  either  by  sanctioning  by  a  special  Act,  or 
by  disannulling.  She  even  went  farther,  and  considered  that 
each  successive  step  which  the  Bishops  might  consider  neces- 
sary to  take  to  enforce  conformity  did  not  require  direct  and 
fresh  sanction  at  their  hands ;  that  they  had  the  aiitJiority  inJierent 
in  their  office. 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  some  of  the  Bishops,  and  even  Parker, 
were  anxious  to  obtain  the  Queen's  formal  sanction  or  the  au- 
thority of  Parliament  for  what  they  did  ;  but  the  reason  for  this 
was  probably  on  Parker's  side,  that  he  might  "  level  up  "  the 
Puritan  Bishops  and  give  them  no  excuse  to  avoid  enforcing 
conformity,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops  generally  that  they 
might  overawe  the  boldness  of  the  Puritan  leaders  by  represent- 
ing them  as  disloyal  subjects  to  the  State,  as  well  as  to  the 
Church. 

If  this  view  of  Elizabeth's  conduct  be  the  correct  one,  as 
we  submit  it  is,  then  we  have  the  key  to  what  seems  so  un- 
necessarily puzzling  to  many  writers  in  the  fact  that  Church 
documents  were  issued,  and  their  provisions  acted  upon  and 
enforced,  although,  as  they  complain,  without  royal  authority; 
and  the  silence  of  these  or  similar  documents  on  the  Statute  of 
1 571  is  likewise  accounted  for. 

The  same  general  principle  governs  the  whole :  — 


The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  lino  land.  295 

The  inherent  rii^lit  of  the  Church  to  rule  herself,  either  by 
her  voice  ex[)res.sed  in  Convocation,  or  by  the  Bishops  speakin^^ 
on  behalf  of  Convocation. 

§  X.    Older  of  the  Ecclesiastical  ConiniissionerSy  June  7,  1571. 

The  Parliament  which  had  met  on  April  2  was  prorogued  on 
May  29,  and  Convocation,  which  had  assembled  on  ^\pril  3, 
broke  up  on  May  30. 

As  a  result  of  the  Canons  passed  by  Convocation,  the  Ec- 
clesiastical Commissioners  lost  no  time  in  issuing  an  order 
headed:  "The  Commissioners  Ecclesiastical  to  all  Church 
wardens  concerning  the  Puritan  Ministers,"  and  omitting  the 
preamble,  the  charge  is  as  follows :  — 

We  wil  and  require  you,  and  in  the  Queen's  Majesties  name  straitly 
charge  and  command  you,  and  every  of  you,  that  in  no  wise  ye  suffer 
any  person  or  minister  to  minister  any  sacrament,  or  say  any  publick 
prayers,  in  any  your  churches,  chappels,  or  other  places  appointed  for 
common  prayers,  in  any  other  order,  maner,  or  sort,  than  only  accord- 
ing to  the  prescription  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  the  Queen's 
Majesties  law  published  in  that  behalf. 

And  that  in  no  wise  you  suffer  any  person  publicly  or  privatly  to 
teach,  read,  or  preach,  in  any  the  said  churches,  parishes,  chappels, 
private  houses,  or  other  places,  unles  such  be  licenced  to  preach,  read, 
or  teach,  by  the  Queen's  Highnes  authority,  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury his  licence,  or  by  the  licence  of  the  Bishop  of  the  dioces  :  and 
that  he  be  such  a  minister  as  is  licensed  to  preach  after  the  first  of 
May  last,  and  not  removed  from  the  ministry  by  us,  or  any  other  law- 
ful authority  [Strype's  Parker^  i\ppendix.  Number  LXII.  vol.  iii.  p. 
183]. 

§  XI.    Parkers  Three  Articles,  passed  iii  June,  1 571. 

In  the  history  of  the  conflict  of  the  Church  w^ith  the  Puritans, 
Precisians,  and  Parity-men,  et  Jioc  genus  onnie,  there  are  no  more 
important  Articles  than  the  Three  Articles  which  Parker  insisted 
on  the  clergy  subscribing,  and  which  we  have  named  Parker's 
Three  Articles. 

We  know  of  no  writer  that  has  given  them  that  prominence 
they  deserve.  A  few  have  an  incidental  notice  of  them,  or  rele- 
gate an  obscure  allusion  to  them  in  a  foot-note.  Many  seem  to 
have  confounded  them  with  Whitgift's  Three  Articles.  They 
seem  to  have  escaped  the  notice  of  even  the  painstaking  Hard- 


2^6  The  Church  Review. 

wick,  for  there  is  not  a  stray  allusion  to  them  in  his  book  on  the 

Articles. 

The  references  by  Whitgift,  in  his  Defence  of  the  Answer  to 
the  Admonition,  to  Three  Articles  to  which  Cartwright  and  his 
compeers  strongly  objected,  make  it  evident  that  there  must 
have  been  in  force  before  the  publication  of  the  Admonition  in 
1 5/ 1  Three  Articles  directed  against  the  Puritans.  The  re- 
marks, therefore,  that  follow  on  these  Three  Articles  do  not 
profess  in  any  way  to  be  a  summary  of  what  has  already  been 
said  by  others  on  the  subject,  but  are  the  result  of  such  re- 
searches as  can  at  best  be  but  very  limited  on  this  continent. 
Enough,  however,  will,  it  is  hoped,  be  said  to  show  the  extreme 
importance  of  these  Articles,  while  at  the  same  time  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  much  more  might  be  said  on  further 
research. 

The  Convocation,  as  we  have  seen,  passed  canons  regulating 
the  action  of  Bishops  and  preachers  so  as  to  prevent  the  intru- 
sion of  unworthy,  unlearned,  or  unauthorized  ministers.  One 
of  the  means  of  effecting  this  w^as  the  plan  of  recalling  all 
licenses,  and  enjoining  that  the  applicants  should  subscribe  to 
the  XXXIX.  Articles  as  approved  by  the  Synod  in  1562,  and 
that  they  would  defend  the  doctrine  therein  contained.  We 
saw  what  injunctions  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  issued 
in  the  Advertisements  of  1564,  and  also  the  order  they  issued 
after  the  passage  of  these  Canons,  on  June  7,  1571,  to  the 
church-wardens;  incidentally  we  have  also  noticed  the  in- 
structions given  by  the  Bishop  of  Ely  to  his  Chancellor,  on 
August  28. 

How  to  carry  out  effectually  the  wishes  of  Convocation,  as 
expressed  in  the  Canons  referred  to  under  Section  VIL,  was  the 
task  the  Archbishop  now  set  before  himself.  Grindal,  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  was  lukewarm,  and  so  was  Parkhurst  of  Nor- 
wich and  Sandys  of  London.  On  the  other  hand,  Jewel  of 
Sarum  promised  to  stand  by  the  Arcli^bishop,  and  so  did  Home 
of  Winchester,  Cox  of  Ely,  Ballingham  of  Worcester,  and  Curteis 
of  Chichester. 

Parker  determined  to  strike  an  effectual  blow  at  the  Puritans 
by  dealing  with  their  principal  leaders.  These  were  accord- 
ingly cited  to  appear  at  Lambeth,  to  answer  for  their  erroneous 
doctrine  and  for  their  non-conformity  to  the  Prayer-Book.  Some 
were  merely  admonished ;    others  had  to  resign  their  benefices. 


TJie  Voice  of  the  CInirch  of  Engla7id.  297 

This  occurred  on  June  6,  as  appears  from  a  document  si<^ned 
by  Dcringe,  one  of  the  leading  Puritans.  On  the  very  next 
day,  June  7,  the  order  to  tlie  church-wardens  was  issued;  this 
dealt  with  tlie  Puritans  in  the  country  as  well  as  in  London. 

Whether  Archbishop  Parker  had  already,  pri(jr  to  June  6, 
framed  the  Three  Arlieles  or  not,  the  writer  is  unable  to  as- 
certain ;  the  probabilities  are  that  they  were  not,  but  that 
finding  the  Puritans  evaded  the  injunctions  of  the  Commis- 
sioners, or  possibly  did  not  appear  when  cited,  the  Archbishop 
determined  to  devise  more  effectual  means  to  obtain  conformity. 
If  the  Three  Artieles  had  been  framed  prior  to  the  issue  of 
the  order  to  the  church-wardens,  they  would  most  likely  have 
been  mentioned.  Be  that  as  it  may,  they  certainly  were  not 
only  framed,  but  actually  tendered  for  subscription  before  July 
4.  For  we  read  in  a  petition  of  Robert  Johnson,  domestic  chap- 
lain to  Lord  Bacon,  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  dated 
August  14,  1571.— 

That  whereas  the  4th  of  July  last,  being  before  their  Lordships  to 
answer  to  their  three  articles,  he  did  forbear  to  subscribe  to  the  first 
of  them,  etc.     [See  Strype's  Parker^  vol.  ii.  p.   70.] 

Historically  speaking,  then,  the  Canons  of  1571  were  the 
origin  of  Parker's  Three  Artieles,  although  they  derived  their 
legal  authority  from  being  issued  by  Parker,  as  head  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  Queen. 

The  strong  authority  claimed  by  the  Commissioners  comes 
out  very  forcibly  in  the  letter  of  remonstrance  which  the  Com- 
missioners addressed  to  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  who  had  endeav- 
ored to  shield  the  notorious  Robert  Brown  ^  from  the  reach  of 
the  Commissioners  by  claiming  that  as  his  domestic  chaplain. 
Brown  was  in  a  place  of  privilege. 

Our  Commission  (so  reply  the  Cornmissioners)  extendeth  to  all  places 
as  well  exempt,  as  not  exempt,  within  Her  Majesty's  dominions,  and  be- 
fore this  time  never  by  any  called  into  question.  .  .  .  We  would  be  loath 
to  use  other  means  to  bring  him  (/.  e.  Brown)  to  his  answer,  as  we  must 
be  forced  to  do  if  your  grace  will  not  like  hereof  [quoted  by  Strype's 
Parker,  vol  ii.  p.  68]. 

1  Brown  became  the  founder  of  the  "  Brownists,"  the  ancestors  of  the  Independ- 
ents and  Conj^regationalists.  After  eighteen  years'  schismatical  preaching  Brown 
conformed  ;  but,  as  Strype  says,  "  he  still  continued  very  freakish." 


298  The  Church  Review. 

When  the  Commissioners  addressed  a  personage  of  the  stand- 
ing of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  thus,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  attacked 
the  chaplain  of  the  Lord  Keeper  Bacon,  they  could  not  have 
had  much  doubt  of  their  legal  authority,  although,  as  will  be 
noticed,  they  studiously  ignore  the  Parliamentary  Statute,  13 
Eliz.  c.   12,  just  passed. 

Having  therefore  shown  the  approximate  date  of  the  issue  of 
these  Articles,  the  second  week  in  June,  1571,  and  their  histori- 
cal origin,  the  Canons  of  1571,  and  their  legal  authority,  the 
Queen's  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  there  remains  but  to  give 
the  wording  of  the  Articles. 

By  the  help  of  Whitgift's  Defence  of  the  Answer  to  the  Admo- 
nitioji,  and  the  letter  of  complaint  of  the  Puritan  Johnson,  we 
are  able  to  give  their  very  terms,  for  the  first  time  si7ice  the 
Reformation. 

PARKER'S   THREE   ARTICLES. 

I.  That  the  book,  commonly  called  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  for 
the  Church  of  England,  authorized  by  Parliament,  and  all  and  every 
contents  therein  be  such  as  are  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God 
[Whitgift's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  326]. 

II.  That  the  manner  and  order  appointed  by  Public  Authority  about 
the  Administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  Common  Prayers,  and  that 
the  apparel  by  sufficient  authority  appointed  for  the  ministers  within  the 
Church  of  England,  be  not  wicked,  nor  against  the  Word  of  God,  but 
tolerable,  and  being  commanded  for  order  and  obedience'  sake  are  to  be 
used  \Ibi(i.  p.  458]. 

III.  That  the  Articles  of  Religion  which  only  concern  the  true  Chris- 
tian Faith  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacraments  comprised  in  a  book  im- 
printed :  Articles  whereupon  it  was  agreed  by  both  Archbishops,  and 
Bishops  of  both  Froirinces,  and  the  ivhole  clergy  i?t  the  Convocation  holden 
at  London,  i?i  the  year  of  our  Lord  1562,  according  to  the  computation  of 
the  Church  of  Englafid,  and  every  of  them  contained  true  and  godly 
Christian  doctrine. 

Articles  I.  and  II.  speak  for  themselves.  The  word^  *'  repug- 
nant to  the  Word  of  God  "  were  brought  in  because  that  was 
the  pet  Puritan  phrase  against  the  Prayer-Book,  just  as  **  wicked 
and  anti-Christian"  was  brought  in,  in  the  Canons  of  1604,  be- 
cause that  was  the  stock  phrase  of  the  Presbyterians  against 
the  doctnne  and  government  of  the  Church, 

Article  III.  enjoins  subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of 
1562.     There  is  a  material  point  to  be  noticed  bearing  on  the 


The  Voice  of  the  Chicrch  of  Efigland,  299 

quibble  raised  afterward  by  tlie  Puritans  on  the  word  "  onl)," 
as  referred  to  already  under  Section  VIII.  The  very  preaniljle 
of  the  Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12  is  used,  "  which  only  concern  the  true 
Christian  Faith,"  etc.,  but  there  is  added  at  the  end  of  the  title 
the  words,  **  and  every  of  them."  The  addition  of  these  four 
words,  added  as  they  are  in  an  unstudied  manner,  and  before 
the  quibble  was  raised,  show  quite  clearly  what  was  meant  by  the 
Act  within  a  month  of  its  being  passed,  and  by  the  persons 
whom  it  intimately  concerned. 

When  Robert  Johnson  wrote  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Commis- 
sioners on  August  14  on  the  subject  of  these  Three  Articles  he 
says  that  as  to  Article  I.  he  would  put  up  with  the  Prayer-Book, 
and  was  ready  to  declare  the  contents 

were  not  defective,  nor  expressly  contrary  or  against  the  Word  of  God, 
and  that  the  imperfections  thereof  might  for  unity  and  charity  sake  be 
suffered  till  God  grant  a  time  of  perfect  reformation. 

To  the  second  he  submits  in  the  following  terms :  — 

To  the  Second,  That  the  minister's  apparel  as  it  was  not  wicked,  and 
directly  against  the  Word  of  God,  being  by  the  Prince  appointed  only 
for  policy,  obedience,  and  order  sake,  might  be  used  ;  yet  not  generally 
expedient  nor  edifying. 

He  thus  submits,  ungraciously  and  grudgingly  perhaps,  still 
he  submits  to  the  first  two  Articles.  To  the  third,  which  he 
repeats  in  extenso,  and  has  thus  preserved  for  us,  he  submits 
without  a  murmur;   he  does  not  raise  a  single  objection. 

Let  It  be  noted  that  Robert  Johnson  ^  was  a  leading  man,  that 
he  was  chaplain  to  Lord  Bacon,  that  he  dates  his  letter  from 
Bacon's  house  at  Gorhambury,  beside  S.  Albans,  and  sends  it 

1  This  Robert  Johnson,  like  Brown,  afterward  conformed.  Johnson  appears, 
however,  to  have  conformed  with  more  heart  than  Brown,  for  Strype  mentions  a 
sermon  of  his  on  Sept.  3,  1609.  where  he  blamed  the  laity  "  for  refusing  their  own 
parish  churches,  and  to  hear  their  own  pastors  were  they  never  so  well  learned 
or  well  habited  in  speech  because  they  wore  a  surplice,  or  made  a  cross  upon  a 
child,  and  would  run  after  and  get  them  a  heap  of  teachers,  that  spake  evil  of  them 
that  were  in  authoritv  — that  would  rail  against  Bishops,"  etc.  ;  and  in  another  ser- 
mon he  spoke  of  "  schismatical  spirits  who,  under  color  of  zeal,  etc..  would,  if  they 
could,  banish  those  Bishops  which  Christ  and  His  apostles  appointed,  and  would 
turn  all  discii)line  and  government  upside  down,  churches  into  chambers,  Bishops 
into  Syndics,"  etc.  . 

All  very  good  and  true,  but  the  pity  is  that  he  had  not  followed  his  own  advice 
years  before. 


300  The  Church  Review. 

in  all  human  probability  after  having  submitted  it  to  the  keen 
and  almost  unrivalled  intellect  of  his  patron.  What  becomes, 
then  of  the  quibble  on  the  word  *'only"?  If  Parliament  had 
intended  to  limit  the  subscription  to  some  of  the  Articles,  clum- 
sily and  ungrammatically  as  they  would  have  expressed  such  an 
intention  in  the  wording  of  the  Act,  yet  Bacon  would  have 
known  of  that  intention,  and  have  quickly  pointed  out  to  his 
protege  a  legal,  and  therefore  effective,  means  of  defying  the 
Ecclesiastical  Commissioners. 

These  articles  are  important  as  adding  another  convincing 
proof,  if  one  were  needed,  that  Chief-Justice.  Coke's  ruling  was 
the  right  one.  They  are,  however,  still  more  important  as  hav- 
ing been  the  immediate  cause  of  the  publication  of  the  cele- 
brated Admonition  to  Parliament  by  the  Puritans  before  May, 
1572,  which  led  to  Whitgift's  Answer  to  the  Admonition,  which 
in  turn  brought  out  Cartwright's  Reply  to  the  Answer,  to  which 
succeeded  Whitgift's  Defence  of  tJie  Answer  to  the  Admonition, 
followed  by  Cartwright's  Second  Reply. 

The  importance  of  Parker's  TJiree  Articles  are  historically, 
therefore,  very  great.  When  dealing  with  the  Admonition  con- 
troversy later  on,  we  shall  refer  to  them  again ;  for  the  present 
we  pass  on  to  the  next  section. 

§  XII.     TJie  Queens  Proclamation  of  Oct.  20,  1573. 

The  heading  of  this  proclamation  is  :  *'  A  proclamation  against 
the  despisers  or  breakers  of  the  Orders  prescribed  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer." 

This  proclamation  was  one  of  the  results  of  the  Admonition 
controversy  alluded  to  in  the  last  section.  The  following  clause 
instructing  magistrates  and  others  is  all  that  we  need  give: 

If  any  person  shall  by  public  preaching,  writing,  or  printing  contemn, 
despise,  or  dispraise  the  orders  contained  in  the  said  book  {i.  e.  Book  of 
Common  Prayer),  they  shall  immediately  apprehend  him,  and  cause  him 
to  be  imprisoned  until  he  have  answered  to  the  law,  &c.  [Strype's  Docu- 
mentary Afuials,  vol.  vi.  p.  385]. 

Comment  is  unnecessary. 

§  XIII.    The  XV.  Articles  passed  by  Convocation  in  March,  1576. 

Parker  died  May  17,    1575,   and  Grindal  was  not  appointed 

Archbishop  till  Feb.  15,  1576. 


The  l^oice  of  the  ChurcJi  of  Eyigland.  301 

Of  these  Articles  only  the  substance  of  those  which  concern 
our  inquiry  need  be  given. 

I.  Subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles  of  1562  enjf^incd  on 
all  candidates  for  ordination,  who  were  to  be  ordained  only  on 
Sundays  or  Holy  days  and  according;  to  the  form  prescribed  in 
the  Ordinal. 

III.  Unlearned  ministers  formerly  ordained  not  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  any  cure  or  function. 

IV.  and  V.  enjoin  diligent  inquiry  in  each  Diocese  for  the  dis- 
covery of  such  as  have  counterfeited  letters  of  Orders. 

IX.    None  under  a  Deacon  to  be  allowed  to  preach. 

These  Articles  again  afford  no  loophole  for  any  one  to  enter 
the  ministry  except  according  to  the  form  of  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion provided  in  the  Ordinal.  They  also  go  farther.  They  show 
a  strong  desire  on  the  part  of  Convocation  to  weed  out  the  un- 
learned men  who  at  all  times  smuggle  themselves  in,  despite  all 
regulations;  and  what  is  still  more  remarkable,  the  provisions  of 
the  IV.  and  V.  Articles  point  to  a  scandal,  which  must  have  been 
caused  by  the  Puritans  only  because  the  Papist  had  no  need  to 
forge  letters  of  Orders,  since  his  own  Orders  were  never  called 
into  question. 

The  IX.  was  a  blow  struck  at  the  gospellers,  or  readers.  If  a 
layman  could  not  preach,  a  fortiori,  a  layman  could  not  admin- 
ister the  Sacrament. 

So  far,  then,  as  the  year  1576  there  are  no  signs  discoverable 
on  the  part  of  Convocation  to  admit  anything  but  the  exclusive 
validity  of  Episcopal  ordination. 

It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Puritans  had  not 
been  without  influence  in  this  very  Convocation,  for  it  was 
through  them  that  the  last  four  were  passed.  The  XII.,  which 
allowed  none  but  "a lawful  Minister  or  Deacon"  to  baptize 
privately,  was  a  concession  on  lay  baptism  against  which  the 
Puritans  were  always  reviling.  The  XIIL  and  XIV.  related  to 
commutations  of  penance  and  matters  of  discipline.  The  XV. 
provided  for  the  solemnization  of  matrimony  at  all  times  of  the 
year,  —  in  other  words,  allowing  marriages  in  Lent, 

The  Queen  refused  to  sanction  the  XII.  and  XV.,  hence  these 
Articles  are  sometimes  known  as  the  XIII.  Articles  of  1576. 
But  Convocation  passed  the  whole  fifteen,  although  when  the 
Articles  were  printed  only  thirteen  were  given. 

Strong,  therefore,  as  Puritan  influence  was  in  the  Convocation 


302  The  Church  Review. 

of  1576,  there  was  no  tampering  with  the  Ordinal,  or  any  re- 
laxation in  subscription  to  the  Articles  allowed. 

§  XIV.      Whitgifls  Three  Articles  of  April,  1584. 

These  Articles  have  been  very  inaccurately  stated  to  be  the 
same  as  Parker's  Three  Articles^  or,  rather,  Parker's  Three 
Articles  have  been  passed  over  because  they  were  considered 
to  be  the  same  as  Whitgift's  Three  Articles.  Even  in  the  Pref- 
ace to  the  Liturgical  Services,  Queen  Eli::abet]i,  edited  by  the 
Parker  Society,  this  mistake  is  made  of  confounding  these  two 
sets  of  Articles.  We  have  seen  what  Parker's  Articles  really 
were.     The  following  are  those  issued  by  Whitgift :  — 

I.  That  Her  Majesty,  under  God,  hath,  and  ought  to  have,  the 
sovereignty  and  rule  over  all  manner  of  persons  born  within  her  realms, 
and  dominions,  and  countries,  of  what  estate  ecclesiastical  or  temporal 
soever  they  be.  And  that  none  other  foreign  power,  prelate,  state,  or 
potentate  hath,  or  ought  to  have,  any  jurisdiction,  power,  superiority,  or 
preeminence,  or  authority  ecclesiastical  or  temporal,  within  Her  Ma- 
jesty's said  realms,  dominions,  or  countries. 

II.  That  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  of  ordering  Bishops, 
ftiests,  and  Deacons,  containeth  nothing  in  it  contrary  to  the  Word  of 
(  jOD.  And  that  the  same  may  be  lawfully  used ;  and  that  he  himself 
will  use  the  form  of  the  said  book  prescribed,  in  public  prayer,  and 
administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  none  other. 

III.  I'hat  he  alloweth  the  book  of  Articles  of  religion,  agreed  upon 
by  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  both  provinces,  and  the  Clergy  in 
Convocation  holden  at  London,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1562,  and  set 
forth  by  Her  Majesty's  authority.  And  that  he  believeth  all  the  Articles 
therein  contained  to  be  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  [Strype's  Whit- 
gift, vol.  I.  p.  230]. 

None  were  permitted  to  **  preach,  read,  catechise,  minister 
the  Sacraments,  or  to  execute  any  other  ecclesiastical  function, 
by  what  authority  soever  he  be  admitted  thereunto,  unless  he 
first  consent  and  subscribe  to  these  Articles,  before  the  Ordi- 
nary of  the  Diocese  wherein  he  preacheth,  readeth,  catechiseth, 
or  ministcreth  the  Sacraments." 

The  enforcement  of  subscription  to  these  Three  Articles  gave 
great  offence  to  the  **  maintainers  of  the  discipline  of  GOD,"  as 
the  Puritans  and  Parity-men  called  themselves.  "  They  strug- 
gled with  all  their  might  to  have  them  vacated  or  thrown  aside," 


The  Voice  of  the  Chtn^cJi  of  Englajid.  ^o-i^ 

as  Str}'pc  expresses  it,  and  the  country  swarmed  witli  pam- 
phlets against  the  Bisliops  for  "  deprivinL,^  many  faithful  min- 
isters of  the  Gospel  for  not  subscribing." 

Of  course  the  second  was  the  great  rock  of  offence,  because 
it  enjoined  subscription  to  the  Prayer- Book  ami  Ordinal.  To  use 
Strype's  forcible  expression,  — 

The  second  of  which,  viz.,  the  approbation  of  the  Common  Prayer 
Book,  and  the  form  of  Ordering  Ministers,  to  be  agreeable  to  the  Word 
of  CioD,  would  not  down  with  nuiny  that  had  offices  and  places  in  the 
Church  [Strype's  Whitgi/t,  vol.  i.  p.  241]. 

During  Grindal's  primacy,  especially  in  the  latter  years,  when 
he  was  growing  blind,  some  men  who  did  not  believe  in  Epis- 
copal ordination  may  have  been  admitted.  Perhaps  in  some 
rare  cases,  men  who  had  been  **  ordained  "  abroad  in  the  Protest- 
ant communities  at  Antwerp  or  Geneva,  had  thrust  themselves 
not  into  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  for  that  they  could  not  do 
so  long  as  the  Ordinal  lay  unrepealed,  but  into  the  cures  or 
benefices  of  the  Church,  and  thus  like  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing 
appeared  to  be  ministers  of  the  Church.  Perhaps  there  may 
have  been  such  cases,  although  not  a  single  authentic  case  has 
yet  been  brought  forward  of  an  un-Episcopally  ordained  man 
having  been  wittingly  admitted.  The  Queen  and  the  Arch- 
bishop were,  however,  determined  to  enforce  the  law  of  Church 
and  State  against  Papists  and  Puritans  alike. 

If  the  second  article  was  aimed  against  the  Puritans,  the  first 
was  against  the  Papists,  and  the  third  against  both  of  them. 
The  wording  of  the  third  Article,  be  it  noted,  leaves  no  room 
for  even  Puritan  quibbling;  he  has  to  profess  belief  in  "all 
the  Articles." 

The  Bishops  proceeded  with  their  visitations,  and  everywhere 
enforced  subscription  to  Whitgift's  Three  Articles.  A  list  is 
given  by  Strype  of  non-subscribing  ministers.  Lord  Burghley 
made  some  notes  as  to  the  opinions  and  doctrines  of  these 
men.  They  are  all  Puritanical  objections,  not  one  of  them  is  a 
Roman  objection,  showing  plainly,  if  proof  were  needed,  the 
class  of  Non-Conformists  against  whom  these  articles  were 
intended. 

A  few  of  these  and  other  Puritan  objections  will  show  their 
opinions  as  to  what  the  Ordinal  taught,  and  will  prove  whether 
the  voice  of  the  Church  of  England  \vas  uncertain  on  the  ques- 


304  The  Church  Review, 

tion  of  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal  ordination  or  not  in 

their  ears. 

The  Book  allows  to  the  clergy  a  superiority,  and  establisheth 
not  the  authority  of  the  Elders.  It  is  contrary  to  God's  Word 
to  order  these  degrees  in  the  Church,  —  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons. 

Bishops  and  Priests  can  give  no  reason  of  any  calling  they 
have  out  of  the  Word  of  GOD. 

The  whole  government  of  the  Church  is  declared  to  be,  — 

Thus,  he  that  teacheth  in  doctrine,  is  Doctor ;  he  that  exhorteth  in 
exhortation,  is  Pastor ;  he  that  distributeth  in  singleness,  is  Deacon  ;  he 
that  ruleth  in  diligence,  is  Senior ;  he  that  showeth  mercy  in  cheerfulness, 
is  Wido7u, 

The  people  ought  in  every  Church,  by  the  Word  of  God,  to  choose 
their  own  Ministers.  .  .  .  Every  Church,  by  the  prescript  rule  of  God's 
Word,  ought  to  have  a  perpetual  government  of  Doctor,  Pastor,  Seniors, 
Deacons,  etc.,  which  ought  to  rule  and  govern  the  whole  Church,  and 
every  member  of  the  same.^ 

The  Archbishop  drew  up  the  following  three  deductions  that 
would  follow  from  refusal  to  subscribe  to  the  Three  Articles  : 

I.  If  you  subscribe  not  to  the  Article  concerning  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  then  by  necessary  consequence  must  follow,  there  is  not  the  true 
service  of  God,  and  right  administration  of  the  Sacraments  in  the  land. 

II.  If  you  subscribe  not  the  book  of  Ordering  Ministers,  then  it  fol- 
loweth  your  calling  is  unlawful,  and  the  Papist  argument  is  good  :  No 
calling,  no  ministry,  no  Church,  etc. 

III.  If  not  to  the  last  Article,  then  you  deny  true  doctrine  to  be 
established  in  the  churches  of  England,  which  is  the  main  note  of  the 
Churches.  And  so  I  see  no  reason  why  I  should  persuade  the  Papists 
to  our  Religion,  and  to  come  to  our  Church,  seeing  we  will  not  allow  it 
ourselves  [Strype's  Whitgift,  vol.  i.  p.  248]. 

When  the  Puritan  party  of  the  Privy  Council  complained  to 
the  Archbishop  as  to  the  rigor  with  which  he  was  enforcing 
subscription  to  his  Three  Articles  he,  in  the  course  of  his 
reply,  threw  out  this  challenge :  — 

And  here  I  do  protest,  and  testify  unto  your  Lordships  (of  the  Privy 
Council),  that  the  Three  Articles,  whereunto  they  (the  non-conforming 

1  Taken  ''rom  the  answers  in  writinc;  of  Dudley  Fenner.  Strype's  Whitgift^  vol. 
i.  p.  246.  The  following  names  are  men'ioned  as  having  been  given  by  this  Fenner 
in  baptism,  —  Joy  Again,  From  Above,  More  Fruit,  Dust. 


The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  Enghind.  3^5 

ministers)  are  moved  to  subscribe,  are  sueli  as  I  am  ready  l)y  learning  to 
defend  in  manner  and  form  as  tiiey  are  set  down,  against  all  mislikers 
thereof  in  England  or  elsewhere  [Strype's  Whitgift,  vol.  i.  p.  255]. 

No  wonder  "the  l^rcthrcn,"  the  "  pscudo-cvangclicals,"  the 
"  Gospellers,"  the  "  Godly  disciplinarians,"  and  all  their  like- 
minded  friends  who  had  been  so  strenuously  fighting  for  the 
"  parity  of  ministers,"  called  this  year  of  grace  1584  '*  the  woful 
year  of  subscription." 

§  XV.      The  Twcnty-Foiir  Articles  of  May,  1584. 

Whitgift  succeeded  Grindal  in  the  Archbishopric  on  Sept. 
23,  1583.  Grindal,  who  had  been  lax  both  by  inclination  and 
through  failing  health,  had  not  enforced  the  laws  against  the 
Puritans  as  rigidly  as  his  predecessor.  Whitgift  determined 
to  enforce  conformity.  With  that  object  in  view  twenty-four 
Articles  were  drawn  up  by  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners 
under  authority  of  the  Queen,  in  May,   1584. 

These  Articles  were  framed  on  a  different  model  from  all  the 
previous  ones.  A  man  had  simply  to  subscribe  to  the  former 
formularies,  or  else  be  refused  ordination,  or  compelled  to  re- 
sign his  cure.  Now  the  proceeding  was  different.  The  burden 
of  proof  that  he  was  not  guilty  was  thrown  on  the  accused;  as 
will  be  clearly  seen  by  reciting  any  one  of  the  Articles. 

Take  the  eighth,  for  example. 

8.  Itc7n  ohjicwius,  poJiwius,  et  articuhinwi,  that  for  the  space  of  theise 
three  years,  two  yeres,  one  yere,  half  a  yere,  three,  two,  or  one  moneth 
last  past,  you  haue  at  the  tyme  of  communion,  and  at  all  or  some  other 
tymes  in  your  ministration,  vsed  and  worne  onlly  your  ordinarie  apparel 
and  not  the  surplesse,  as  is  required  ;  declare  how  longe,  how  often,  and 
for  what  cause,  consideration,  or  entente  youe  haue  so  done,  or  refused 
so  to  doe.     Et  objicimus  conjunctim  de  omnim,  et  divisi  de  quolibet. 

This  is  pretty  severe.  It  is  presuming  at  the  outset  that  the 
unfortunate  accused  is  guilty,  and  forces  him,  at  the  edge  of 
the  sword,  as  it  were,  to  prove  his  complete  innocence.  The 
whole  series  is  directed  against  the  Puritans,  and  is  set  in 
the  same  terms  as  the  one  quoted.  The  latter  part  of  the 
twenty-second  is  the  only  portion  of  them  directly  affecting  a 
Papist,  as  it  is  a  declaration  against  any  foreign  power,  prelate, 
potentate,  etc. 

By  the  first  one  the  accused  is  summoned  to  declare  — 


3o6  The  Church  Review, 

that  you  are  a  Deacon,  or  Minister  and  Priest  admitted,  declare  by 
whome,  and  what  tyme  you  were  ordered  ;  and  likewise  that  your  order- 
inge  was  accordinge  to  the  booke  in  that  behalf  by  lawe  of  this  land 
provided. 

By  the  second,  that  he  deemed  *'  his  ordering,  admission,  and 
calling  into  the  ministrie  to  be  lawfuU  and  not  repugnant  to  the 
Word  of  God."  The  third  deals  with  canonical  obedience  ;  the 
fourth,  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventeenth  and  twentieth  with  "  the  vir- 
tuous and  godly  booke  entituled  The  Booke  of  Common  Prayer, 
etc,  /"  the  eighth  with  the  surplice,  the  ninth  with  the  sign  of  the 
cross  at  baptism,  the  tenth  and  thirteenth  with  infant  baptism, 
the  eleventh  with  the  ring  at  matrimony,  the  twelfth  with 
objecting  to  use  the  form  of  thanksgiving  for  women,  the  four- 
teenth with  the  Litany,  the  fifteenth  with  changing  the  lesson 
for  the  day,  the  sixteenth  with  the  Burial  Service,  the  eighteenth 
with  the  Communion  Service,  the  nineteenth  with  preaching 
against  the  Prayer-Book  and  assembling  at  conventicles,  the 
twenty-first  with  former  accusations,  the  twenty-second  with  sub- 
scription to  the  Prayer-Book,  Ordinal,  and  all  the  Articles  of 
Religion,  the  twenty-third,  with  preaching  in  houses  or  unli- 
censed places,  and  the  twenty-fourth,  that  he  has  violated  all 
the  preceding  twenty-three,  wholly  or  in  part.  Familiar  as 
VVhitgift  was  with  the  Puritan  contentions  through  his  contro- 
versy with  Cartwright,  he  dealt  with  them  omnia  et  singula  in 
these  Articles.  At  the  very  outset  the  Puritan  has  to  produce 
his  letters  of  Orders,  or  give  satisfactory  proof  of  his  Orders. 
If  he  cannot  do  that,  —  if  he  cannot  prove  that  he  is  ordained 
"  according  to  the  law  of  this  land  provided,''  —  it  is  useless  to 
go  on  farther  with  the  inquiry.     He  stands  condemned. 

Where  is  the  uncertain  voice  in  1584? 

The  Puritans,  on  the  issue  of  these  Articles,  used  all  their  in- 
fluence to  have  them  mitigated,  but  in  vain ;  nor  were  they  more 
successful  with  the  petition  they  succeeded  in  obtaining  from 
the  House  of  Commons  to  the  Upper  House.  The  main  clauses 
of  that  petition  were  that  the  Bishops  should  restore  such 
'•  godly  preachers  "  as  had  been  suspended  for  no  other  crime 
than  their  refusal  to  subscribe  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  and  that 
they  should  not  be  examined  on  the  oath  ex  officio  (meaning 
the  proceedings  under  the  XXIV.  Articles),  but  that  the  Bishops 
should  only  act  upon  definite  informations  supplied.  The  Lords 
gave  them  no  relief.    The  legality  of  the  proceedings  under  these 


The  Voice  of  tJie  C/inrc/i  of  England.  307 

XXIV.  Articles  was  never  once  (jucstioned,  thou^di  their  ri^or 
was  complained  of. 

Lord  Burghlcy,  who  favored  the  Puritans,  wrote  to  the  Arch- 
bishop pleadini^  for  less  "vehement  proceedings."  Whitgift, 
under  date  of  July  3,  1584,  defends  the  action  of  the  Commis- 
sioners concerning  these  XXIV.  Articles  and  incidentally  asserts 
that  they  were  "  framed  by  the  best  learned  in  the  laws,"  and 
ingenuously  asks  why  any  object  to  answer  if  innocent  of  the 
charges  laid  against  them.  "  Qui  male  agit  odit  lucem,"  is  the 
answer  he  gives  to  his  own  question. 

To  satisfy  objectors  the  Archbishop  drew  up  a  paper  of 
"Reasons"  why  culpable  ministers  should  be  examined  on 
their  oaths  as  set  out  in  the  XXIV.  Articles.  These  "  Reasons  " 
are  given  at  length  in  Strype's  Whitgift,  vol.  i.  p.  318.  The 
eleventh  is  as  follows :  — 

XI.  The  Article  for  examination  whether  these  bee  Deacon  or  Minis- 
ters ordered  according  to  the  lawes  of  this  lande  is  most  necessarie  :  First, 
For  the  grounding  of  the  proceeding,  least  the  breache  of  the  Book  bee 
objected  to  them,  who  are  not  bound  to  observe  it :  Secondly,  To  meet 
with  such  schismaticks  (whereof  there  is  sufficient  experience),  which 
either  thrust  thefnselves  into  the  miftistrie,  7vithout  any  lawful  calling  at 
all,  or  ellse  take  orders  at  Antweoj'p,  or  ellswhere  beyond  the  sea. 

The  "lawful  calling"  is  the  calling  according  "  to  the  lawes 
of  this  lande,"  and  "  the  lawes  of  this  lande  "  are,  no  calling  is 
lawful  which  is  not  according  to  the  Ordinal,  which  admits  only 
of  Episcopal  ordination. 

"  Orders  at  Antweorp  or  ellswhere  beyond  the  sea "  were 
Presbyterian  "  Orders,"  and  these  are  declared  to  be  not  "  ac- 
cording to  the  lawes  of  this  lande,"  as  not  being  according  to 
the  Ordinal. 

What  becomes  of  the  theory  that  the  exclusive  validity  is 
not  the  sole  view  to  be  tolerated  and  taught  in  the  Church 
of  England? 

We  have  seen,  when  examining  into  the  history  of  Parker's 
Three  Articles,  that  they  were  the  immediate  cause  of  the  Ad- 
monition to  Parliament.  It  will  be  well  to  turn  back  for  a  while 
to  that  half-forgotten  chapter  in  Church  history. 

VII.   THE  ADMONITION   CONTROVERSY. 
The    opponents   of  the   Church   drew    up   two   pamphlets  in 
1572,  setting  forth  their  views  as  to  Church  government,  replete 


3o8  The  Church  Review, 

with  attacks  on  every  point  of  the  Church's  doctrine,  services, 
liturgy,  worship,  ritual,  and  government.  This  production  de- 
rived its  title  from  an  ecclesiastical  term,^  and  though  addressed 
to  Parliament,  was  never  presented  to  that  body,  but  was  printed 
and  sown  broadcast  over  the  kingdom  before  the  prorogation  of 
the  Parliament  of  1572. 

VVhitgift,  then  Dean  of  Lincoln,  was  chosen  by  Archbishop 
Parker  to  answer  the  Admonition  to  Parliament,  which  he  ac- 
cordingly did  before  the  close  of  the  year,  in  his  Answer  to  the 
Admonition.  Cartwright,  one  of  the  framers  of  the  Admonitiony 
produced  under  his  initials,  T.  C,  A  Reply  to  the  Answer  to  the 
Admonition  in  1573.  Whitgift  thereupon  wrote  his  Defence  of 
the  Answer  to  the  Admonition  against  the  Reply  of  T,  C,  in 
1574,  in  which  he  met  Cartwright's  objections  paragraph  by 
paragraph,  point  by  point.  This  work,  thus  containing  both 
sides,  is  not  only  conducted  in  the  fairest  method  of  contro- 
versy, but  is  a  regular  storehouse  of  the  point  at  issue  between 
the  Church  and  her  Puritan  opponents.  Cartwright  published 
a  Second  Reply,  in  two  parts,  with  an  interval  of  two  years 
between  the  parts,  and  can  thus  claim  the  distinction  of  having 
had  the  last  word. 

The  Preface  to  the  Admonition  gives  us  a  summary  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Admonition  itself:  — 

But  in  a  few  words  to  say  what  we  mean.  Either  we  must  have  a 
right  ministry  of  God  [Matt.  ix.  37,  38  ;  Eph.  iv.  11,  12]  and  a  right 
government  of  His  Church  [Matt,  xviii.  15,  16,  17]  according  to  the 
Scriptures  set  up  (both  which  we  lack)  ;  or  else  there  can  be  no  right 
religion,  nor  yet  for  contempt  thereof  can  God's  plagues  [Prov.  xxix. 
18  ;  Amos  viii.  11,  12,  etc. ;  Matt.  xxi.  23,  etc.  ;  i  Cor.  xi.  30]  be  from  us 
any  while  deferred  {^Works  of  John  Whitgift.  Parker  Society,  185 1, 
vcl.  i.  p.  140]. 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  —  that  is. 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  —  is  the  main  object  of  the  attack. 
The  Admonition  bears  out  the  promise  of  the  Preface,  and  is  full 
of  attacks  on  the  ministry  of  the  Church.     The  *'  Godly  minis- 

1  Thomas  Cartwright,  chief  of  the  Non-Conformists,  presents  the  Parliament  with 
a  book  called  an  Admonition,  some  members  taking  distaste  at  the  title  thereof- 
For  seeing  that  Admonition  is  the  lowest  of  ecclesiastical  censures,  and  a  prepara- 
tive (if  neglected)  to  suspension  and  excommunication,  such  suggested  that  if  the 
Parliament  complied  not  with  this  Admonitor' s  desires,  his  party  (whereof  he  the 
speaker)  would  proceed  to  higher  and  louder  fulminations  {Fuller,  p.  102,  as 
quoted  by  Soame's  Elizabethan  History.     London,   1839,  p.  163,  note]. 


The  Voice  of  I  he  ChiircJi  of  Ejigland.  309 

try"  is  declared  to  be  lackin^s  the  "  Godly  ministry"  bein^  the 
same  as  that  desired  by  the  anonymous  Puritan,  in  the  Ccrtaiiu 
CoHsidcj'ations,  already  referred  to,  and  beini^  pastors,  govern- 
ing elders,  and  providers  for  the  poor.  So  we  read  in  the 
Admonition :  — 

We  in  England  are  so  far  off  from  having  a  Church  rightly  reformed, 
according  to  the  prescript  of  God's  word,  that  as  yet  we  are  not  come  to 
the  outward  face  of  the  same.  .  .  .  Touching  the  first,  namely,  the 
ministry  of  the  Word,  although  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  substance 
of  doctrine  by  many  delivered  is  sound  and  good,  yet  herein  it  failcth, 
that  neither  the  ministers  thereof  are  according  to  God's  Word,  proved, 
elected,  called,  or  ordained  \lVorks  of  Whitgift,  vol.  i.  p.  290]. 

Again,  on  p.  485,  same  volume:  — 

But  now  Bishops  (to  whom  the  right  of  ordering  ministers  doth  at  no 
hand  appertain)  do  make  sixty,  eighty  or  one  hundred  at  a  clap,  and 
send  them  abroad  into  the  country  like  masterless  men. 

The  Admonition  grounds  one  of  its  m.ain  reasons  against  the 
Puritans  signing  Parker's   TJiree  Articles  that  — 

This  prescript  form  of  service  (as  they  call  it)  is  full  of  corruptions,  it 
maintaineth  an  unlawful  i7iimstry  unable  to  execute  that  office  \^IbicL 
vol  i.  p    ZZ^\ 

Referring  to  Parker's  Third  Article,  which  required  subscrip- 
tion to  the  XXXIX.  Articles,  they  naively  assert,  — 

For  the  Articles  concerning  the  substance  of  doctrine,  using  a  Godly 
interpretation  in  a  point  or  two,  which  are  either  too  sparely  or  else  too 
darkly  set  down,  we  were,  and  are  ready  according  to  duty  to  subscribe 
unto  them  \_Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  461]. 

It  is  thus  that  the  same  party  continue  to  subscribe  to  the 
same  Articles,  or  to  use  the  Prayer-Book.  "  Using  a  Godly 
interpretation  in  a  point  or  two,''  is  certainly  a  very  convenient 
method  of  interpretation. 

Touching  Deacons  [the  Admonition  complains]  though  their  names  be 
remaining,  yet  is  the  office  foully  perverted  and  turned  upside  down.  .  .  . 
Now,  it  \%  the  first  step  to  the  ministry,  nay,  rather  a  mere  order  of  priest- 
hood {^Ibid.  vok  iii.  p.  282]. 

It  asks  for  the  "  assistance  of  Elders  and  other  officers " 
[p.  132],  claims  that  **  Elders  or  seniors  ought  to  be  in  the 
Church  when  bespeaking  for  a  Seigniory  or  Government  by 
Seniors"  [p.  150]. 


3IO  The  Church  Review. 

Instead  of  chancellors,  archdeacons,  officials,  commissaries, 
proctors,  doctors,  summoners,  church-wardens,  and  such  Hke, 
you  have  to  place  in  every  congregation  a  lawful  and  godly 
seigniory  \_Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  153]. 

It  laments  that  "  concerning  Seniors,  not  only  their  office, 
but  their  name  also  is  out  of  the  English  Church  utterly  re- 
moved "  [p.  156],  and  that  instead  of  the  Seniors  the  Church 
yet  maintains  *'  the  lordship  of  one  man  over  sundry  Churches  " 
[p.  161],  and  claims  that  the  whole  regiment  of  the  Church 
ought  to  be  committed  to  those  three  jointly;  that  is.  Ministers, 
Seniors,  and  Deacons  [p.  295].  Of  Bishops,  the  Admonition 
complains,  *'  They  make  ministers  by  themselves  alone,  and  of 
their  sole  authority"  [p.  246],  and  holds  "  that  a  Bishop  at  no 
hand  hath  authority  to  ordain  ministers  "  [p.  502]. 

But  if  Deacons  and  Bishops  are  treated  with  scant  respect, 
the  virulence  of  abuse  is  reserved  for  the  Priesthood.  It  has 
always  been  so  in  every  attack  on  the  Church.  If  the  Deacon 
is  exalted,  it  is  that  the  Priest  may  be  lowered.  If  the  Bishop 
is  lowered,  it  is  because  he  is  the  source  of  the  Priesthood.  If 
the  Sacraments  are  disparaged,  it  is  to  sap  the  very  foundation 
of  things  Sacramental,  which  derive  their  being  from  the  office 
of  the  Priest.  If  preaching  is  exalted,  it  is  because  by  com- 
mon consent  of  the  Catholic  Church  a  preacher  need  not  be  a 
Priest. 

The  Admonitiojty  therefore,  condemns  in  no  measured  terms 
the  retention  of  the  word  "  Priest."  "  We  speak  not  of  the 
name  of  Priest  wherewith  he  defaceth  the  Minister  of  CHRIST  " 
[vol.  iii.  p.  350].  It  is  noteworthy  to  observe  that  when 
Whitgift,  in  his  Answer  to  the  Admonition,  says  that  the  name 
of  Priest  should  not  be  so  odious  to  the  Puritans  since  its  der- 
ivation is  from  ''  Presbyter,"  Cartwright,  in  his  reply,  is  not 
slow  to  attack  the  weakness  of  that  defence,  for  after  very 
justly  observing  that  it  matters  not  what  the  derivation  of  a 
word  is,  but  rather  what  is  meant  by  a  word  in  the  usual  and 
common  speech,  he  attacks  the  retention  of  the  word  "Priest" 
as  follows :  — 

The  case  standeth  in  this,  that,  forsomuch  as  the  common  and  usual 
speech  of  England  is,  to  note  by  the  word  '  Priest,'  not  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  but  a  sacrificer,  which  the  minister  of  the  Gospel  is  not ;  there- 
fore, we  ought  not  to  call  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  '  Priests  '  \Ibid, 
vol.  iii.  p.  351]. 


The  Voice  of  the  C lucre k  of  England.  31 1 

The  Ad))iunitio)i  even  denies  tlic  ri<;ht  of  *'  popish  Mass- 
mongers  "  to  become  ministers  of  the  Gospel ;  in  other  words, 
it  would  not  have  the  Church  continue  tlie  Apo,stohcal  succes- 
sion, or  allow  men  ordained  under  the  old  Ordinal  to  serve  in 
the  Reformed  Church.  Not  to  overlay  the  text  with  too  many 
quotations,  let  these  two,  taken  from  the  conclusion  of  the 
Admonition  where  the  argument  is  summed  up,  suffice: 

.  ,  .  but  Christ  should  be  suffered  to  reign,  a  true  ministry  according 
to  the  word  instituted,  discipline  exercised,  Sacraments  purely  and  sin- 
cerely ministered  \Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  461]. 

Neither  is  the  controversy  betwixt  them  and  us  as  they  would  bear  the 
world  in  hand,  as  for  a  cap,  a  tippet,  or  a  surplice,  but  for  great  matters 
concerning  a  true  ministry,  and  required  of  the  Church  according  to  the 
Word  {_Ibid.  vol.  iii.  p.  450]. 

The  writers  of  the  Admonition  have  thus,  in  their  conclusion, 
made  good  the  words  of  their  Preface,  and  shown  that  their 
whole  object  was  the  overthrow  of  the  ministry  as  continued  iii 
the  Ordinal.  As  an  enemy  will  seize  and  lay  hold  of  villages 
and  hamlets,  and  small  fortified  places  that  cover  the  approach 
to  the  strong  city,  the  fall  of  which  terminates  the  campaign, 
and  will  even  make  feigned  attacks  on  outlying  points  to  divert 
the  attention  of  the  defenders,  so  did  the  whole  host  of  Puritans, 
Precisians,  Presbyterians,  and  Parity-men,  attack  and  overthrow 
certain  points  of  the  Church's  worship  and  ritual,  and  make 
feigned  attacks  on  others,  in  order  that  they  might  the  more 
easily  destroy  and  utterly  abolish  the  whole  root  of  the  Apos- 
tolic ministry. 

To  use  the  very  words  of  the  framers  of  the  Admonition  : 

The  way, there  fore,  to  avoid  these  inconveniences,  and  to  reform  these 
deformities,  is  this  :  Your  wisdoms  have  to  remove  advowsons,  patron- 
ages, impropriations,  a7id  Bishops'  authority  claiming  to  themselves  there- 
by right  to  ordain  Ministers  [vol.  iii.  p.  8]. 

The  point  in  the  present  controversy  lies  in  a  nutshell. 

Has  this  authority  and  claim  ever  been  removed?  If  so,  let 
it  be  stated  where,  and  eadit  qua^stio.  If  not,  then  the  Church 
of  England  never  denied  the  claim. 

The  appeal  to  Parliament  was  thus  to  legalize  a  ministry 
other  than  that  then  legal.  It  was  not  an  appeal  for  liberty 
to  worship  GoD  in  their  own  way,  but  an  appeal  for  the  estab- 
lishment   of  a   government,    regiment,   or   discipline,    as    they 


312  The  Church  Review. 

variously  termed  it,  of  Seigniory,  which  was  in  fact  effected 
when  the  Puritan  party  got  the  upper  hand  under  Cromwell's 
Protectorate.     ., 

In  the  year  previous  to  the  appearance  of  the  Admonition, 
Cartwright  had  been  deprived  from  his  Margaret  Professor- 
ship at  Cambridge,  and  inhibited  from  preaching  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  University,  in  consequence  of  the  Six  Propo- 
sitions maintained  by  him.     Briefly  they  were  as  follows :  — 

I.  The  names  and  functions  of  Archbishops  and  Archdeacons  ought 
to  be  suppressed. 

II.  The  name  of  lawful  ministers  in  the  Church,  such  as  Bishops  and 
Deacons,  when  abstracted  from  the  Office  described  in  Holy  Scripture 
are  likewise  to  be  rejected,  and  the  whole  brought  back  to  the  Apostoli- 
cal Institution.  And  thus  the  Bishop's  functions  ought  to  be  limited  to 
praying  and  preaching,  and  the  Deacon's  to  taking  care  of  the  poor. 

III.  The  government  of  the  Church  ought  ...  to  be  in  the  hands 
of  the  Minister  and  Elders  of  the  same  Church. 

VI.  That  ministers  ought  not  to  be  ordained  on  the  sole  authority  of 
the  Bishop,  much  less  are  they  to  receive  Orders  in  a  study,  or  such 
private  place,  but  this  Office  ought  to  be  conferred  by  a  public  choice  of 
the  congregation  [Collier's  Ecclesiastical  History^  1714?  P-  525]. 

Cartwright  and  his  friends  also  drew  up  XIX.  Articles  em- 
bracing their  demands.  Almost  all  of  them  strike  at  the 
Episcopacy  or  Priesthood  of  the  Church.  It  will  be  sufficient 
to  mention  the  III.,  IV.,  and  XVIII. 

III.  Preaching,  prayers,  and  administering  the  Sacraments  ought  to 
be  performed  by  the  same  person.  From  hence  it  follows  that  those 
who  are  not  ministers  of  the  Word,  that  is,  those  who  can't  preach, 
ought  neither  to  pray  publicly  for  the  congregation  nor  administer  the 
Sacraments. 

IV.  Popish  priests  have  no  authority  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel  by 
virtue  of  their  own  ordinations. 

XVIII.  These  words  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  at  the  Ordination  of 
Ministers,  is  a  /-idiculous  and  wicked  expression. 

Here,  again,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the  enemies  of  the 
Church  as  to  what  the  Church  meant  by  her  Ordinal  and 
Ministry:  — 

Nowhere  do  we  find  that  the  Puritans  claimed  that  the  Church 
allowed  any  other  ordination  than  that  by  Bishops. 

Nowhere  do  we  find  that  the  Puritans  claimed  that  the  Church 
considered  her  Bishops  on  a  parity  with  her  Priests. 


The  Voice  of  ihc  CJnirch  of  England. 


ji  j 


Nowhere  do  we  fuid  that  the  I^/tritaiis  claimed  that  the  Chiireh 
meant  nothing  bv  her  solemn  forms  in  Ordination,  Confirmation, 
Holy  Commnnion. 

If  the  opposite  contention  was  a  true  one,  that  the  Church 
maintained  no  exchisive  chiini  for  her  ministers  as  bein^  Episco- 
pally  ordained,  then  we  ouj^dit  to  find  abundant  references  to 
that  false  hberahty.  The  Puritans  would  have  exultantly  sjjied 
this  weakness  out,  and  have  exclaimed,  — • 

You  call  your  Elders  Bishops,  but  you  allow  them  to  do  just  what  we 
claim  Elders  ought  to  do,  and  no  more.  You  call  your  Ministers  Priests, 
and  yet  they  do  nothing  more  than  the  Ministers  we  wish  to  establish. 
All  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  are  nothing,  are  idle, 
peevish,  or  popish,  and  your  Book  declares  them  so  to  be  ;  why  con- 
tinue them? 

This  would  have  been  their  argument,  for  they  w^ere  by  no 
means  devoid  of  reasoning,  or  slow  to  apprehend  a  point  in 
their  favor.  But  their  cry  is  the  very  reverse  of  this.  Sub- 
stantially it  is, — 

You  admit  Popish  Priests  on  account  of  their  Episcopal  Ordination, 
and  reject  us ! 

You  maintain  the  three  Orders  and  reject  our  '  Apostolic  Institution 
of  Elders  and  Pastors  and  Providers  for  the  Poor  '  1 

You  stubbornly  maintain  imposition  of  hands  in  Ordination  and  Con- 
firmation, which  we  reject ! 

Such  and  such-like  was  their  wail.  All  of  which  proves  the 
voice  of  the  Church  was,  alas,  too  certain  for  them;  Whitgift's 
Answer  to  the  Admonition  was  naturally  violently  attacked  by 
the  Puritans.  One  Chark,  in  a  sermon  ad  clernm,  laid  down 
these  two  conclusions :  — 

I.  Episcopatus,  Archiepiscopatus,  Metropolitanatus,  Patriarchatus,  et 
Papatus,  a  Satana  m  Ecclesiam  introducti  sunt. 

II.  Inter  Ministros  ecclesias  non  debet  alius  alio  esse  Superior  [Col- 
lier, vol.  ii.  p.  538].  1 

A  certain  Nicholas  Brown,  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cam- 
bridge, declaimed  in  the  pulpit  against  the  — 

1  I.  Bishops,  Archbishops,  Metropolitans,  Patriarchs,  and  Popes,  are  by  Satan 
introduced  into  the  Church, 

II.  Among  Ministers  of  the  Church  there  ought  not  to  be  any  one  superior  to 
the  other. 


314  The  Church  Review. 

English  Ecclesiastical  constitution,  and  pronounced  the  Orders  re- 
ceived in  the  reigns  of  King  Henry  and  Queen  Mary  of  no  significancy, 
and  those  who  were  then  made  priests  ought  not  to  officiate  without  a 
new  ordination.  Being  called  to  account  for  these  heterodoxies,  he  was 
at  last  prevailed  to  recant  them  [Collier,  vol.  ii.  p.  538]. 

Despairing  of  reforming  the  Church  to  their  model,  or  of 
getting  Parliament  to  alter  the  legal  status  of  a  minister,  the 
Puritans  erected  a  Presbytery  at  Wandsworth.  Among  those 
concerned  we  need  only  note  Travers  and  Chark.  The  pre- 
amble to  their  resolution  establishing  this  Presbytery  was:  — 

That  forasmuch  as  divers  books  had  been  written,  and  sundry  petitions 
exhibited  to  Her  Majesty,  the  Parliament,  and  their  Lordships  to  little 
purpose,  every  man  should  therefore  labour  by  all  means  possible  to 
bring  the  Reformation  into  the  Church  [Collier,  vol.  ii.  p'.  541]. 

When  this  open  act  of  schism  became  known,  the  Puritans, 
notwithstanding  their  influential  friends  at  court,  were  vigorously 
pressed.  To  gain  time  most  likely,  they  proposed  a  public  dis- 
putation. The  challenge  was  accepted  by  Sandys,  Bishop  of 
London,  but  Burleigh  was  opposed  to  the  idea,  and  instead  of  a 
conference  several  of  the  leading  Puritans  were  brought  before 
the  Council  and  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners,  and  examined 
touching  their  opinions  on  Cartwright's  Reply  to  the  Answer  to 
the  Admonition. 

The  second  and  third  questions  were,  Whether  the  Prayer- 
Book  and  the  XXXIX.  Articles  were  agreeable  to  God'S  Word 
or  not?  The  fourth,  "Whether  we  are  obliged  to  follow  the 
customs  of  the  Primitive  Church  or  not?  The  fifth,  *'  Whether 
all  Ecclesiastical  Ministers  ought  to  be  of  equal  authority,  both 
in  Office  and  Jurisdiction?"  After  railing  at  being  forced  to 
subscribe  in  matters  of  religion,  the  malcontents  now  drew  up  a 
"  Protestation  "  which  reminds  us  of  the  recent  words  of  the 
Bishop  of  Western  New  York,  when  speaking  of  the  feeble  title, 
"Protestant  Episcopal."  He  says:  "I  call  it  feeble  because 
a  protest  is  the  last  resource  of  an  unsuccessful  cause.  Men 
enter  a  protest  when  they  give  up  a  case  they  are  not  able  to 
maintain." 

This  "  Protestation  "  they  obliged  each  member,  on  admit- 
tance to  a  congregation,  to  swear.  Each  of  these  "  Protestants" 
had  to  make  this  "  Protestation  "  singly  and  individually,  as  it 
is  drawn  up  in  the  first  person  throughout.     He  begins  his  Pro- 


The  Voice  of  the  Church  of  England,  3^5 

testation  by  havin<^  to  declare,  "  I  am  escaped  from  the  filthiness 
and  pollution  of  these  detestable  Traditions."  The  doctrines  of 
the  Church  are  called  "  idolatrous  trash,"  "  marks  of  the  Romish 
beast,"  and  the  Church  nicknamed  '*  The  Church  of  the  Tradi- 
tioners."  lie  undertakes  that  he  will  not  attend  the  parish 
Church  by  the  following  pharisaical  declaration  :  — 

I  will  not  beautify  with  my  presence  those  filthy  rags,  which  bring  the 
heavenly  Word  of  the  Eternal  our  Lord  God  into  bondage,  subjection, 
and  slavery  [Collier,  vol.  ii.  p.  544]. 

He  finally  declares,  — 

Moreover,  I  have  now  joined  myself  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  wherein 
I  have  yielded  myself  subject  to  the  Discipline  of  God's  Word.  .  .  . 
For  in  the  Church  of  the  Traditioners  there  is  no  other  Discipline  than 
that  which  hath  been  maintained  by  the  Antichristian  Pope  of  Rome,  etc. 

The  Church  of  England  is  then  polluted,  filthy,  abominable, 
idolatrous,  and  Episcopal  government  declared  "Antichristian," 
—  the  very  term  used  by  the  Scotch  Presbyterians. 

The  Wandsworth  Presbytery  was  the  first  open  act  of  schism, 
and  these  *'  Protestants  "  the  first  declared  schismatics  in  Eng- 
land. Be  it  carefully  noted  that  the  cause  of  this  schism  was 
the  refusal  of  Church  and  realm  to  tamper  with  the  threefold 
ministry. 

Our  self-imposed  task  is  concluded. 

If  any  reader  has  followed  us  through  these  historic  researches, 
we  ask  him.  Is  there  the  faintest  doubt  as  to  wdiat  the  Church  of 
England  taught  and  proclaimed  on  the  question  of  the  exclusive 
validity  of  Episcopal  ordination?  Can  any  one  lay  his  finger  on 
any  one  official  act  of  the  Church  which  countenanced  presby- 
terial  ordination?  It  is  most  remarkable  that  almost  every  year 
between  1534  and  1589  there  was  some  official  pronouncement 
against  any  other  than  Episcopal  ordination.  The  documents 
from  which  quotations  have  been  given  may  be  set  forth  thus : 

1534.  Abolition  of  the  Papal  Supremacy. 

1535.  King's  Articles. 

1537.  Declaration  of  the  Functions  and  Divine  Institution  of 
Bishops  and  Priests. 

1538.  De  Ordine  et  Ministerio  Sacerdotum  et  Episcoporum. 
1 543.  Necessary  Doctrines  and  Erudition  for  a  Christian  Man. 
1 548.     The  Articles  of  1 548. 


31 6  The  Church  Review. 


548 


3:) 


1551 

1552 

553 


Justus  Jonas  Catechism. 


The  Ordinal. 

The  XLV.  Articles. 

Revised  Ordinal. 

The  XLIII.  Articles. 
1553,  July  6,  to  Nov.  17,  1558.     Queen  Mary's  reign. 
1559,  March  31.     Westminster  Abbey  Conference. 
1559,  April  28.     Act  of  Uniformity.     The  Eleven  Articles. 
1 561-1588.     Visitation  Articles. 

1562.     The  XXXIX.  Articles  passed  by  Convocation. 
1564.     The  Advertisements. 
1571.     The  Canons  of  1 571. 
1571.     Act  13  Eliz.  c.  12. 

Subscription  to  XXXIX.  Articles  enforced  by  Parlia- 
ment. 

Order  of  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners. 

Parker's  Three  Articles. 
1 572-1 580.     Admonition  Controversy. 
1573.     Queen's  Proclamation. 
1576.     The  XV.  Articles. 
1584.     Whitgift's  Three  Articles. 
1584.1     The  XXIV.  Articles. 

If  the  above  table  is  carefully  examined  it  will  be  found  that 
between  the  years  1 534-1 588  official  declarations  were  being 
constantly  made  asserting  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal 
ordination  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  condemning  either 
directly  or  by  implication  every  other  kind  of  ordination.  For 
any  one  to  assert,  as  Dr.  Kelley  did,  that  "  no  one  in  the  Church 
of  England  thought  of  calling  in  question  the  validity  of  the 
Orders  and  Sacraments  of  the  Reformed  Churches,"  or  to  state 
with  Dr.  H.  J.  Van  Dyke  that  "  it  is  only  since  the  days  of 
Charles  I.  and  his  prime  minister,  Laud,  that  the  Episcopal  de- 

1  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  years  1584-89  were  those  when  England  was 
distracted  by  Jesuits'  intrigues  culminating  in  the  Armada.  The  attention  of  the 
Church  during  those  five  years  was  therefore  directed  more  to  its  Roman  than 
Genevan  foe.  Not  that  the  Puritan  party  ceased  its  attacks  against  the  Threefold 
Ministry  during  those  years;  on  the  contrary,  the  country  was  flooded  with  veno- 
mous libels  culminating  in  1588  in  the  Martin  Marprelate  libels,  that  year  being  un- 
patriotically  chosen,  as  they  boldly  owned,  that  the  Church  —  a  nation  then  in  fear 
of  outward  force  —  might  neither  deny  nor  discourage  the  Puritan  pretensions.  The 
uncompromising  attitude  of  the  Church  on  the  question  of  Orders  may  be  inferred 
from  this  very  manner  and  time  of  attack. 


The  Voice  of  tJic  Church  of  England.  3 1 7 

nomination  has  rcriiscd  to  recognize  the  validity  of  otlier  ordi- 
nations besides  its  own  "  is,  in  both  cases,  historically  false. 

As  to  the  latter  half  c^f  Dr.  Kelley's  statement,  that  from 
the  Reformed  Churches  which  were  presbyterial  in  ordination 
and  government,  "  ministers  and  members  were  received  to  im- 
mediate and  equal  standing  in  the  Church  of  England,"  in  the 
face  of  the  foregoing  official  declarations  of  the  Church  of 
England,  it  needs  no  reply. 

No  one  in  the  Church,  Archbishop  or  Queen,  had  the  power 
to  receive  an  un-Episcopally  ordained  minister  on  equal  stand- 
ing with  the  Priests  of  the  Church. 

With  much  special  pleading  and  after  an  infinitude  of  re- 
search, six  names  Out  of  the  tens  of  thousands  of  Priests  of  the 
Church  during  that  troubled  period  arc  brought  forward  as  hav- 
ing possibly  been  recognized  as  Priests  of  the  Church  without 
having  had  Episcopal  ordination.  These  six  are  Cartwright, 
Travers,  Whittingham,  Morrison,   Harrington,  and  Saravia. 

To  persons  desirous  of  going  into  the  details  of  the  first  four 
of  these  cases,  I  beg  to  refer  them  to  my  article  in  the  number 
of  this  Review  for  October,  1889.  It  will  there  be  seen  that 
Cartwright,  being  a  Deacon,  was  allowed  to  preach,  but  for- 
bidden the  exercise  of  any  priestly  ministry;  that  Travers  was 
deposed  and  silenced  for  being  ordained  only  according  to  the 
foreign  Reformed  use,  and  not  according  to  the  English  Ordinal; 
that  Whittingham  was  arraigned  and  tried,  but  died  before  the 
trial  was  concluded;  that  as  to  Morrison,  it  is  an  open  ques- 
tion still  as  to  whether  he  was  not  Episcopally  ordained,  and 
that  even  if  he  was  not,  we  have  no  record  of  any  of  his 
acts. 

Barrington  and  Saravia  I  hope  to  treat  at  some  length  at  a 
future  time,  as  soon  as  I  have  all  the  necessary  material  at  hand. 
I  may,  however,  say  thus  much,  that  the  only  ground  for  sup- 
posing Saravia  to  have  been  un-Episcopally  ordained  is  that  no 
record  of  his  ordination  has  been  found,  which  is  a  very  poor 
argument,  since  many  a  record  of  much  greater  importance  has 
perished  by  accident  or  design  during  the  last  three  centuries 
in  England,  and  that  to  doubt  of  his  ordination  would  logically 
be  on  a  par  with  doubting  the  ordination  of  Haddan  and  Gore, — 
writers  who  have  equally  with  Saravia  defended  the  threefold 
ministry.  I  am  ready  to  prove  that  Barrington  has  been  men- 
tioned entirely  owing  to  a  careless  reference  to  an  Index  to  a 


3i8  The  Church  Revieiv, 

State  paper,  and  that  he  was  involved  in  a  lawsuit  with  Whitgift 
not  about  his  ordination  or  lack  of  ordination,  but  simply  about 
some  lands. 

Let  sixty  instead  of  six  such  shadowy  cases  be  brought  for- 
ward,—  ay,  or  even  sixty  times  six,  —  and  what  would  it  prove? 
Only  this,  —  lax  administration  of  the  law.  Murders  are  daily 
committed  in  the  United  States ;  does  that  prove  there  is  no  law 
against  murder?  Does  it  prove  that  there  is  a  law  favoring 
murder? 

It  is  waste  of  time  to  discuss  individual  cases  and  airy  hypoth- 
eses as  to  what  the  Church  might  have  said,  when  we  know  so 
well,  so  indisputably,  what  the  Church  has  said,  what  the  Church 
has  pronounced. 

The  law  of  the  Church  of  England  before  1534  maintained 
the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal  ordination,  and  of  the  Sacra- 
ments in  connection  therewith. 

The  law  of  the  Church  since  1589  is  admitted  to  be  the  same 
as  before  1534. 

During  the  period  of  1534  and  1589,  year  by  year,  it  has 
been  proved  from  official  sources,  passing  by  all  private  opin- 
ions, that  the  exclusive  validity  of  Episcopal  ordination  was  the 
sole  view  taught  and  enforced  by  the  Church  of  England.  That 
gap  in  her  history  having  been  filled,  it  may  be  said  without  the 
slightest  fear  of  contradiction  that  from  the  earliest  planting  of 
the  Church  till  now,  — that  is,  for  eighteen  centuries  at  least,  —- 
there  has  been  on  the  question  of  Episcopal  ordination  no  stut- 
tering, stammering,  or  hesitancy  in  the  voice  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

Arthur  Lowndes. 


IM'jSljop  LigljtfoDt  on  tl)c  IDi^tovic  epijScopatc. 

By  the  Rev.  Thomas  F.  Gailor,  M.A.,  S.T.B.,  Vice-chan- 
cellor OF  THE  University  of  the  South. 

HISTORICALLY  there  arc  three  theories  as  to  the  origin 
and  nature  of  the  Christian  ministry.  No  one  of  them 
can  be  absolutely  demonstrated  from  the  fragmentary  records 
of  the  sub- Apostolic  age,i  and  therefore  the  discussion  of  them 
affords  abundant  and  unusual  opportunity  for  the  influence  of 
surroundings  and  prejudices,  of  associations  and  previous  educa- 
tion. No  mind  is  entirely  free  from  this  influence  ;  and  there- 
fore, without  great  sacrifices  of  personal  opinion,  it  cannot  be 
hoped  that  there  ever  will  be  in  Christendom  an  universal  agree- 
ment upon  a  subject  so  important  and  yet  so  stimulative  of  new 
speculation. 

I.  The  first  and  oldest  of  these  theories  may  be  called  the 
theory  of  Cyprian,  which  is  admitted  to  have  been  generally 
held  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  It  is  the  first  formu- 
lated statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostolical  succession  as 
distinguished  from  the  fact  of  the  succession  which  was  emphati- 
cally appealed  to  by  Irenaeus  nearly  one  hundred  years  before. 
Briefly  stated,  and  omitting  the  necessary  coloring  of  Cyprian's 
individuality,  the  theory  is  as  follows,  namely;  The  Incarnation 
is  the  foundation  and  the  interpretation  of  the  nature  and  the 
object  of  Christianity.  The  lesson  of  the  Incarnation  is  the 
exercise  and  the  conveyance  of  Divine  supernatural  authority 

1  It  should  be  remembered  in  the  discussion  of  all  constitutional  and  doctrinal 
questions  that  the  first  generation  of  Christians  had  no  theory  or  fhilosophy  of 
Christianity.  The  facts  of  Christ's  Incarnation,  Life,  Death,  Resurrection,  and 
Ascension  were  enough  for  them.  Therefore,  in  going  to  the  earliest  records  in 
order  to  formulate  a  theory,  we  can  choose  either  the  theory  which  the  Universal 
Church  of  the  second  and  third  generations  drew  from  those  facts,  or  else  the 
theory  which  some  modern  scholar  lias  invented.  This  consideration  is  more 
important  when  we  remember  that  these  Christians  had  no  book  called. the  New 
Testament  to  appeal  to,  that  volume  having  been  collected  and  the  canon  fixed 
not  before  the  fourth  century. 


;^20  The  Church  Review. 

through  and  by  means  of  human  and  material  instrumentalities. 
The  Church  or  Kingdom  of  CHRIST  is  the  extension  of  the  In- 
carnation in  a  vast  sacramental  system,  wherein  men  are  trained 
and  prepared  through  the  free  development  of  their  faculties  for 
their  salvation  in  body  and  soul  in  His  everlasting  Kingdom, 
This  is  S.  Paul's  argument  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  [ch. 
4].  The  delegated  authority  which  our  LORD  Himself  exer- 
cised as  man  on  earth  [cf.  Luke  v.  18]  was  by  Him  dele- 
gated in  turn  to  His  Apostles,  '*  As  My  FATHER  hath  sent  me, 
even  so  send  I  you."  That  ordinary  official  authority  the  Apos- 
tles exercised  in  their  lifetime  and  transmitted  to  other  men  who 
succeeded  them.  James  at  Jerusalem,  Timothy  and  Titus,  and 
perhaps  the  *'  Angels  of  the  Seven  Churches  "  are  examples  of 
this  succession.  It  is  certainly  neither  impossible  nor  improb- 
able that  the  name  ''  Apostle  "  was  gradually  reserved  for  the 
**  witnesses  to  the  resurrection,"  and  that  the  old  Gentile  designa- 
tion '*  Bishop,"  was  given  to  their  successors  in  office.  The 
collective  Episcopate,  thus  originating,  is  the  centre  of  the  gov- 
erning authority  in  the  Church  as  against  the  later  individu- 
alism of  the  Papacy  and  of  the  Protestant  sects. 

This  theory  of  the  ministry  fits  in  with  every  fragment  of 
early  Christian  literature ;  it  satisfies  the  demands  of  the  Incar- 
nation as  a  supernatural  revelation;  it  was  the  universal  belief 
of  the  Church  in  her  best  age.  It  makes  a  philosophy  of  Chris- 
tianity intelligible  and  consistent.  The  objections  to  it  are: 
(i)  That  it  is  comparatively  late.  It  was  not  formulated  —  at 
least  the  literature  remaining  to  us  does  not  formulate  it  — 
until  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  To  this  it  is  replied 
that  in  this  respect  it  is  far  earlier  than  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  which  was  not  formulated  for  a  hundred  years  after- 
ward. (2)  That  it  is  sacerdotal;  but  this  depends  on  what  is 
meant  by  sacerdotal.  If  sacerdotalism  is  identified  with  the 
Hildebrandine  conception  of  a  separate  caste  of  Priests  and 
rulers  in  the  Church,  then  it  is  not  sacerdotal.  The  theory  is 
quite  consistent  with  the  representative  character  of  the  Priest- 
hood ;  indeed,  it  insists  upon  the  fact  that  the  Priesthood  of 
the  laity  is  impossible  without  the  Priesthood  of  the  clergy. 
(3)  The  third  objection  is  that  it  '^ unchurches"  other  Christians, 
but  this  is  a  mistake.  It  unchurches  not  other  Christians,  but 
other  Cliristian  societies.  It  presumes  not  to  judge  men;  but  it 
has  a  right  to  judge  systems  and  organizations,  and  that  without 


Bishop  Lightfoot  on  the  Historic  Episcopate.      321 

just  chari^c  of  narrowness  or  uncharitablcncss.  (4)  The  final 
objection  is  that  the  theory  is  too  simple.  It  is  a  plain  expan- 
sion and  application  of  the  idea  of  the  Incarnation,  and  affords 
too  little  opi)()rtunity  for  the  exercise  of  metaphysical  subtlety 
and  discrimination.  Yet  the  Incarnation  itself  is  simple  enough 
for  the  unlearned  to  realize,  though  it  be  too  deep  for  the  wisest 
to  explore. 

This  is  an  imperfect  outline  of  the  first  and  oldest  theory  of 
the  Christian  ministry.  It  is  referred  to  in  order  to  clear  the 
ground. 

II.  The  second  theory  is  the  theory  of  the  Continental  Re- 
formation. It  has  had  many  phases  of  development,  and  is 
too  shifting  to  be  easily  formulated.  It  began  with  John  Calvin, 
who,  though  a  mere  layman,  undertook  to  preside  over  and  to 
organize  a  Christian  Church.     He  said,  — 

These  worthy  men  tell  us  that  no  molestation  must  be  given  to  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles.  But  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  a  discussion  of  doctrine. 

Prophets  were  raised  up  by  the  extraordinary  inspiration  of  God.  .  .  . 
What  is  said  in  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah  belongs  to  us  not  less  than  to  the 
ancient  people,  —  that  God,  to  punish  the  iniquity  of  evil  shepherds,  will 
drive  them  away,  and  give  good  and  faithful  shepherds.  For  although 
God  daily  gives  such  by  the  calling  of  men,  yet  there  is  a  singular  species 
of  giving,  when  the  work  of  man  ceases,  and  He  Himself  appoints  those 
whom  He  sees  to  be  necessary,  though  human  judgments  pass  them  by 
{True  Method,  pp.  297-298]. 

That  our  discipline  is  not  such  as  the  Ancient  Church  professed,  we 
do  not  deny  {Reply  to  Sadolet,  p.  39]. 

The  succession  which  they  so  haughtily  arrogate  to  themselves,  I  have 
already  rescued  from  them  \True Method,  p.  247]. 

Thus  Calvin  by  **  special  inspiration  "  became  a  "  steward  of 
the  mysteries  of  GOD."  By  ability  and  force  of  character  he 
established  the  "  Presbytery  "  and  *'  the  holy  discipline  "  at 
Geneva,  denying  the  validity  of  *'  prelatic  "  ordination ;  and  this 
new  government  was  introduced  into  England  by  the  Puritans. 
Gradually,  however,  men  saw  that  the  essential  point  in  this 
position  was  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  any  man  who  felt  the 
inward  call,  to  minister  in  the  congregation,  irrespective  of  out- 
ward ordination,  and  that  Calvin  had  no  authority  to  fasten  upon 
the  Church  a  particular  mode  of  government.    Little  by  little  the 


32  2  The  Church  Review, 

notion  of  any  necessary  fixed  form  of  ecclesiastical  organization 
faded  away.  Logically,  the  congregational  theory  had  to  be  ac- 
cepted; namely,  no  form  of  Church  government  can  be  said 
to  have  had  the  Divine  sanction.  Ministers  are  servants  author- 
ized by  the  congregation  for  convenience  and  order.  They 
have  no  ordinary  authority  as  distinct  from  laymen.  The  or- 
ganization of  the  Church  was  completed  by  the  Apostles,  per- 
haps by  S.  John,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  and  they  adopted 
the  form  which  appeared  most  natural  and  effective  to  check 
the  divisions  and  oppositions  of  the  time.  After  all,  it  was 
only  the  Apostles  who  did  it,  not  CHRIST ;  and  their  acts  are 
not  binding  upon  us.  Besides,  there  is  no  formal  ordinance 
extant  which  was  issued  by  the  Apostles  on  this  subject. 
The  true  succession  in  the  Church  is  the  succession  of  sound 
doctrine;  and  the  real  authority  of  the  ministei"  is  in  the 
consciousness  of  his  inward  call  and  his  appointment  by  the 
congregation. 

There  is  a  breadth  and  freedom  and  a  certain  consistency 
about  this  theory  which  attract  many  minds;  but  it  repels 
others  who  fear  that  it  ignores  facts,  and  does  not  guard  nor 
realize  the  Incarnation  and  the  Sacraments.  Calvin  justified 
the  theory  on  the  ground  that  his  doctrine  was  so  pure  that 
an  extraordinary  call  was  needed  to  preserve  it;  and  multi- 
tudes now,  suspecting  that  Calvin's  presentation  of  the  Gospel 
was  not  so  pure  after  all,  begin  to  question  whether  his  "  spe- 
cially inspired "  interruption  of  the  ancient  order  must  not 
fall  to  the  ground  with  his  doctrine. 

III.  Besides  these  two  theories  of  the  ministry,  there  is  a 
third  theory  different  from  either,  which  has  been  advocated 
with  great  ability  and  learning  by  the  late  Bishop  of  Durham. 
It  originated  evidently  from  a  keen  desire  to  reconcile  contend- 
ing parties,  and  to  commit  the  Church  to  no  position  which 
could  not  be  fully  justified  by  a  close,  cautious,  and  even  scep- 
tical investigation  of  the  facts.  Bishop  Lightfoot's  conception 
of  the  origin  of  the  Episcopate  differs  from  both  the  others 
mainly  in  this,  that  it  is  the  result  of  an  honest  effort  to  recon- 
cile all  differences  by  the  sympathetic  admission  of  whatever 
can  be  said  on  the  other  side ;  and  without  prejudice,  without 
any  preconceived  notions,  to  go  back  to  the  ascertained  facts  of 
early  Christian  history  and  make  a  guarded  induction  from  them. 
The  importance  of  such  an  investigation  by  such  a  scholar  can 


Bishop  Lightfoot  on  tJie  Historic  Episcopate.      323 

hardly  be  ovcr-cstimatcd,  for  facts  arc  the  bone  and  sinew  (jf 
any  true  i)hil()S()i)h\',  and  what  lie  <,nves  us,  though  it  be  but 
a  bare  skeleton,  will  indicate  the  true  form  and  nature.  Yet 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  such  an  attempt  to  solve  the  problem  of 
the  origin  of  the  Christian  ministry  will  by  many  be  misunder- 
stood. To  refer  again  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  any  scholar 
who  should  undertake  to  trace  the  growth  of  the  philosophical 
statement  of  this  doctrine  up  to  its  completion  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, with  a  sympathetic  account  of  some  of  the  crude  statements 
of  the  earlier  Fathers,  would  lay  himself  open  to  the  charge 
of  not  believing  in  it  himself,  although  he  firmly  held  in  his 
own  mind  the  doctrine,  the  history  of  which  in  the  interests  of 
scholarship  he  had  tried  to  analyze.  This  is  eminently  true  of 
Bishop  Lightfoot's  account  of  the  Christian  ministry.  Com- 
pared with  the  ordinary  statement  of  the  Apostolical  succession, 
it  seems  at  first  to  be  against  it.  Compared  with  the  ordinary 
congregational  theory,  it  contradicts  it  at  many  points.  It  is 
certainly  not  inconsistent  with  the  strongest  churchmanship ; 
and  to  say  this  is  to  say  everything,  for  it  does  not  purport 
to  be  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  ministry  so  much  as  a 
scholar's  investigation  of  the  facts  upon  which  that  doctrine  is  to 
be  based. 

At  the  outset,  he  pricks  the  bubble  of  '*  no  authorized  minis- 
try," and  says,  — 

The  Church  could  not  fulfil  the  purpose  for  which  she  exists  without 
rulers  and  teachers,  without  an  order  of  men  who  may  in  some  sense  be 
designated  a  Priesthood  \_Essay  on  C.  M.,  p.  6.] 

The  real  Episcopate  of  Timothy  and  Titus  is  asserted  as  some- 
thing not  to  be  questioned :  — 

The  position  of  these  Apostolic  delegates  fairly  represents  the  functions 
of  the  Bishop  early  in  the  second  century  [p.  36]. 

Of  S,  James,  he  says,  — 

It  seems  vain  to  deny  with  Rothe  that  the  position  of  S.  James  in  the 
Mother  Church  furnished  the  precedent  and  the  pattern  of  the  later 
Episcopate. 

More  than  once  he  insists  upon  the  fact  that  the  Episcopate 
was  established  by  the  Apostles,  saying,  for  example,  that  "  its 
prevalence  cannot  be  dissociated  from  their  influence  or  their 
sanction"   [p.  81]. 


324  ^/^^  Church  Review. 

He  therefore  strongly  urges  the  weight  of  this  authority; 
for  example,  — 

The  Priest  may  be  defined  as  one  who  represents  God  to  man  and 
man  to  God.  It  is  moreover  indispensable  that  he  should  be  called  by 
God  for  no  man  '  taketh  this  honor  to  himself.'  The  Christian  minis- 
try satisfies  both  these  conditions.  Of  the  fulfilment  of  the  latter,  the 
only  evidence  within  our  cognizance  is  the  fact  that  the  minister  is  called 
according  to  a  Divinely  appointed  order.  If  the  preceding  investigation 
be  substantially  correct,  the  threefold  ministry  can  be  traced  to  Apos- 
tolic direction ;  and  short  of  an  express  statement,  we  can  possess  no 
better  assura?ice  of  a  Divine  appointme?it  or  at  least  a  Divine  sanction 
[p.  144]- 

His  exhaustive  summary  of  the  evidence  for  the  widespread 
prevalence  of  the  Episcopal  government  as  early  as  112  A.  D.  is 
given  in  the  first  volume  of  his  Apostolic  Fathers.  He  calls  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  Ignatius  claims  to  get  his  exahed  con- 
ception of  the  Episcopal  ofiQce  not  from  man,  but  from  GOD 
[p-  376],  and  says, — 

If  the  evidence  on  which  its  extension  in  the  regions  east  of  the  ^gean 
at  this  epoch  be  resisted,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  what  single  fact 
relating  to  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  during  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century  can  be  regarded  as  established,  for  the  testimony  in  favor 
of  this  spread  of  the  Episcopate  is  more  abundant  and  more  varied  than 
for  any  other  institution  or  event  during  this  period,  so  far  as  I  recollect 
[p.  377]- 

His  treatment  of  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  complete  and 
unanswerable.  He  dwells  upon  the  fact  that  Irenaeus  was  the 
disciple  of  Polycarp  and  Polycarp  of  S.  John. 

Irenaeus  was  probably  the  most  learned  Christian  of  his  time.  He 
had  travelled  far  and  wide.  .  .  .  He  was  in  constant  communication  with 
foreign  Churches  on  various  subjects  of  ecclesiastical  and  theological  in- 
terest. .  .  .  The  Episcopate  as  distinct  from  the  Fresbyterate  is  the  only 
Episcopate  which  comes  within  the  ra?ige,  not  only  of  his  personal  acquain- 
tance., but  even  of  his  intellectual  and  histoi'ical  cognizance.  .  .  .  To 
this  Father  it  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  the  Bishops  of  his  own  age 
traced  their  succession  back  in  an  unbroken  line  to  men  appointed  to 
the  Episcopate  by  the  Apostles  themselves  [p.  378]. 

Here,  then,  we  have  Bishop  Lightfoot's  strong  assertion  that 
from  the  most  cautious  review  of  all  the  evidence  it  is  clear  that 
the  succession  of  the  Episcopal  authority  from  the  Apostles  was 


Bishop  Lightfoot  on  the  Historic  Episcopate.      3^5 

regarded   as   an   undisputed  fact  in  the  second   centur}-,  and  his 
own  conviction  that  the  threefold  ministry  was  estabhshed  by 
Apostolic   direction    and   is   therefore    to    be   regarded    as   "  by 
Divine    appointment,  or  at    least    by  Divine    sanction."     What 
more  can  be  asked?     Upon  what  grounds  has  Bishop  Lightfoot 
been  quoted  as  in  favor  of  the  Presbyterian  or  Congregational 
theory  of  Church  government?     Controversialists  seem  to  for- 
get that   the   only  real   difference   between   Bishop    Lightfoot's 
theory  and  the  old  theory  of  the  Apostolical  succession  lies   in 
the    method    used   to  reach  the  results   and   in   his   two    points 
of  variance    as    to    the  manner  of  the  historical  development. 
Those  two  points  are  well  known  ;  namely:  (i )  The  Bishop  says 
that  the  sacerdotal  theory  of  the  ministry  does  not  appear  until 
Cyprian,  although  the  germs  are  found  in  the  second  century. 
He  devotes  a  large  portion  of  his  essay  to  showing  the  develop- 
ment of  the   conception,  —  from    Ignatius,   who    regarded   the 
Episcopate  as  the  centre  of  unity,  to    Irena^us,  who  appealed 
to   it  as  the  depositary  of  Apostolic    tradition,  and  thence  to 
Cyprian,  who  makes  the  Bishop  the   "  absolute  Vicegerent  of 
Christ."     This  he  calls    "  sacerdotalism  "  in  the    popular  ac- 
ceptation  of  the  term,  —  sacerdotalism  in  which   *'  the   Bishop 
is   regarded  as  exclusively  the   representative   of  GOD    to  the 
congregation,    and    hardly    if  at    all    as    the   representative    of 
the   congregation   before    GOD ;  "  and   **  from  being  the  act  of 
the  whole  congregation,  the  sacrifice  came  to  be  regarded  as 
the  act  of  the  minister  who  officiated  on  its  behalf"    [p.  138]. 
Such  sacerdotalism  appears  in  the  later  developed  doctrine  of 
Apostolical  succession,  and  is  not  found  in  the  earliest  period. 
Clement   of  Rome,  for    example,  in  the  first   century,  insists, 
Bishop  Lightfoot  says,  upon  the  "  Divinely  appointed  order," 
and    not   on    any    sacerdotal    consecration.      Bishop    Lightfoot 
does  admit  a  real  "  sacerdotalism,"  but  it  is  that  sacerdotalism 
which  the  Church  of  England  has  put  into  her  Prayer-Book,vand 
which    is   *'  in   some   sense    involved    in  the   appointment   of   a 
special  ministry"  {p.  112].     But  the  admission  of  this  "special 
ministry"  and  "  Divinely  appointed  order"  is  a  gulf  of  variance 
from  that  individualism  which  protests  against  any  authorized 
ministry  and   denounces   as   Romanism  any  theory  of  Church 
government  which   places  in  the  hands  of  the  rulers  the  per- 
petuation of  the  ministerial  ofifice.      (2)  The  other  peculiarity 
of  Bishop  Lightfoot's  position  which  has  led  to  misconception 


326  The  Church  Review, 

is  his  conjecture  that  the  Bishops  were  not  at  the  outset  ap- 
pointed by  the  Apostles  to  succeed  them  and  originally  placed 
over  the  council  or  college  of  Presbyters ;  but  that  the  Episco- 
pate was  a  "  legitimate  development  "  from  the  Presbyterate, 
immediately  due  to  the  felt  necessity  of  unifying  Christians 
and  checking  divisions.  This  development,  however,  was,  in 
his  opinion,  by  and  with  the  sanction  and  direction  of  the 
Apostles;  and  **  its  maturer  forms  are  seen  first  in  those  regions 
where  the  latest  surviving  Aposdes  (more  especially  S.  John) 
fixed  their  abode"  [p.  81].  Bishop  Lightfoot  believed  that 
God's  creation  of  protoplasm  was  God's  creation  of  life,  and  if 
the  Episcopate  was,  under  Apostolic  direction,  the  *'  legitimate 
development "  out  of  the  Presbyterate,  it  was  Christ's  work  just 
as  really  as  the  Creator  of  the  germ  is  the  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse. To  his  mind  the  outpouring  of  the  SPIRIT  at  Pentecost 
was  real,  and  the  Apostles  '■  had  the  mind  of  Christ"  in  the 
upbuilding  of  His  Church.  Yet  wiUing  as  a  scholar  to  make 
every  concession,  he  placed  the  Episcopate  after  the  Presbyt- 
erate in  order  of  time,  and  thus  satisfied  the  objection  as  to  the 
persistent  application  of  the  name  "  presbyter  "  to  Bishops,  and 
tried  to  show  that  the  later  sacerdotalism  which  we  have  re- 
ferred to  was  not  necessary  to  a  loyal  belief  in  the  Divine 
claims  of  the  Episcopate,  the  Priest  having  no  authority  and 
no  priestly  character  to  which  '*  every  individual  Christian  is 
not  at  least  potentially  entitled." 

After  all,  we  may  ask  ourselves  what  is  the  essential  difference 
between  the  two  positions.  In  one  case  we  suppose  that  the 
Apostles,  inspired  and  commissioned  to  organize  the  Church, 
appointed  Presbyters  to  succeed  them  in  the  exercise  of  their 
ordinary  authority ;  in  the  other  case  we  suppose  that  gradu- 
ally, on  account  of  pressing  needs,  the  importance  of  the  Episco- 
pal office  forced  itself  upon  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  and  cer- 
tain Presbyters  were,  by  their  sanction  and  direction,  raised 
above  their  fellow-Presbyters.  If  we  believe  the  Apostles  to 
have  been  inspire  by  God,  we  need  not  greatly  distress  our- 
selves as  to  the  exact  mental  process  through  which  this  inspira- 
tion operated.  What  we  must  insist  upon  as  the  key  to  the 
whole  problem  is  that  the  authority  to  govern  the  Church  came 
from  above,  from  CHRIST,  not  from  below,  from  the  people. 

And  so  long  as  we  hold  to  the  reality  of  the  Incarnation,  to 
the  authority  and    Divine  constitution  of  the  Church,  to  the 


Bishop  Lightfoot  on  the  Historic  Episcopate.      327 

reality  and  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments,  we  may  safely  differ  as  to 
the  exact  manner  in  which  that  forni  of  the  ministry  arose  in 
the  first  age,  —  a  form  which,  whatever  else  may  be  said  about  it, 
has  certainly,  to  quote  Bishop  Lightfoot's  words,  "  been  handed 
down  from  Apostolic  times,  and  may  well  be  presumed  to  have 
a  Divine   sanction." 

Bishop  Lightfoot  has  himself  recognized  in  the  prefaces  to 
more  recent  works  the  unfairness  with  which  his  "  Essay  "  has 
been   interpreted;   for  example  (Ignatian  Epistles), — 

While  disclaiming  any  change  in  my  opinions,  I  desire  equally  to  dis- 
claim the  representations  of  those  opinions  which  have  been  put  forward 
in  some  quarters.  The  object  of  the  essay  was  an  investigation  into  the 
origin  of  the  Christian  ministry.  The  result  has  been  a  confirmation  of 
the  statement  in  the  English  Ordinal :  'It  is  evident  unto  all  men  dili- 
gently reading  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  ancient  authors  that  from  the 
Apostles'  time  there  have  been  three  Orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's 
Church,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.'  But  I  was  scrupulously  anxious 
not  to  overstate  the  evidence,  in  any  case  ;  and  it  would  seem  that  par- 
tial and  qualifying  statements,  prompted  by  this  anxiety,  have  assumed 
undue  proportions  in  the  minds  of  some  readers,  who  have  emphasized 
them  to  the  nesrlect  of  the  general  drift  of  the  essay. 

J.  B.  D. 

September  9,  1S86. 

The  following  correspondence,  which  appeared  in  the  Church 
Guardian  of  Montreal  and  was  republished  in  the  Living  Church, 

explains  itself:  — 

LocKEPORT,  N.  S.  March  i,  18S7. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Church  Guardian  : 

Sir,  —  Having  been  shown  a  speech  by  a  Presbyterian  minister  in 
which  he  claimed  that  Doctor  Lightfoot,  Bishop  of  Durham,  acknowl- 
edged that  Presbyterian  order  was  the  rule  in  Apostolic  times,  I  wrote 
his  Lordship  and  received  from  his  chaplain  the  following  reply,  which 
may  be  of  much  service  in  refuting  the  views  imputed  to  the  great  his- 
torian and  commentator. 

S.  G. 

*  Auckland  Castle. 

The  Rev.  S.  Gibbons,  Sir,  —  The  Bishop  of  Durham  finds  to  his 
great  regret  that  owing  to  the  great  pressure  of  work  by  which  he  is 
surrounded,  your  letter  respecting  the  Christian  ministry  has  remained 
unanswered. 

The  Bishop  desires  me  to  say  that  so  far  from  establishing  as  the  fact 
that  '  Presbyterianism  was  the    first  form  of   Church    government,'  hi.s 


328  The  Church  Review, 

essay  goes  to  prove  that  Deacons  existed  before  Priests,  and  yet  no 
one  would  contend  that  Church  government  by  Deacons  was  the  '  first 
form,'  hence  the  writer's  argument,  based  on  priority  of  time,  proves 
too  much  for  his  taste.  It  is,  however,  generally  allowed  that  the  names 
Presbuteros  and  Episcopos  in  the  New  Testament  are  sometimes  sy- 
nonymous [Acts  XX.  17;  I  Peter  V.  i,  2  ;  i  Tim.  iii.  1-13,  where  the 
Aposde  passes  at  once  to  Deacons  from  Episcopos,  Titus  i.  5,  7J  ;  but 
even  in  the  times  covered  by  the  New  Testament  writings,  we  see  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  Apostles  individuals  singled  out  to  preside  over  certain 
Churches  and  to  exercise  powers  of  ordination,  government,  presidency, 
etc.,  as  Titus  at  Crete,  James  at  Jerusalem,  Timothy  at  Ephesus ;  and 
though  the  evidence  is  necessarily  limited,  we  find  in  Asia  Minor  Epis- 
copacy pure  and  simple,  appointed  and  established  (no  doubt  by  the  in- 
fluence of  S.  John)  at  the  date  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  and  its  institution 
can  be  plainly  traced  as  far  back  as  the  closing  years  of  the  first  century. 

We  see  the  threefold  ministry  traced  to  Apostohc  direction,  and  this 
bears  out  the  truth  of  our  Prayer-Book  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  and  is  the 
belief  of  the  Anglican  community. 

I  regret  that  in  a  brief  letter  so  much  must  be  passed  over  and  so  in- 
adequate an  account  be  given  of  so  interesting  and  absorbing  a  subject. 

But  enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  the  Presbyterian's  deduction 
from  the  Bishop  of  Durham's  article  is  not  justified  by  the  facts. 

Yours  faithfully, 

J.  R.  Hanner, 

Chaplain. 

January  20,  1887. 

There  is  no  mistaking  the  ecclesiastical  convictions  and  sym- 
pathies of  a  man  who  dedicated  the  second  edition  of  his  life- 
work,  as  *'  a  tribute  of  admiration  and  affection  "  to  so  stalwart 
a  Churchman  as  the  late  Dr.  H.  P.  Liddon  of  S.  Paul's. 

Thomas  F.  Gailor. 


-eDl^e  ji^i'ccnc  CrccD  ajs  tljc  Sufficient  ^tate^^ 
mcnt  of  ti^c  Cl)rijStian  f  aitl)^ 

Prof.  Frederick  W.  Davenport,  S.T.D.,  Professor  of 
Canon  Law  in  the  Western  Theological  Seminary, 
Chicago. 

THE  title  of  this  paper  is  the  second  of  the  four  propositions 
submitted  by  the  House  of  Bishops  in  1886  "  as  essential 
to  the  restoration  of  unity  among  the  divided  branches  of  Chris- 
tendom." So  far  the  Historic  Episcopate  has  been  the  central 
point  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  Christian  unity.  This 
appears  to  be  because  the  Historic  Episcopate  would  call  for 
more  concessions  by  our  non-Episcopal  brethren  of  different 
Communions.  Unless  I  have  misinterpreted  the  many  articles 
which  it  has  been  a  privilege  and  pleasure  to  read  and  study, 
unity  means  to  the  vast  majority  of  these  writers  only  a  unity  of 
those  bodies  which,  for  lack  of  a  better  term,  I  may  call  non- 
Roman  Churches.  But  the  Bishops  do  not  so  limit  their  Decla- 
ration. They  "  affirm  that  the  Christian  unity  now  so  earnestly 
desired  by  the  memorialists  can  be  restored  only  by  the  return 
of  all  Christian  Communions  to  the  principles  of  nnity  exem- 
plified by  the  tindivided  CatJwlic  Church  during  the  first  ages 
of  its  existence."  These  principles  of  unity  they  embody  in  four 
propositions.  If  these  four  principles  were  to  be  treated  from 
the  historical  development  of  them  solely,  we  should  —  in  my 
opinion — reverse  the  order  as  given  in  the  Declaration. 

The  body  of  Christian  truth  was  given  first  to  those  who  were 
called  Apostles,  the  Sacraments  were  given  by  them,  and  the 
ministry  ordained  by  them,  to  the  faithful,  and  the  Nicene  Creed 
formulated  and  accepted  prior  to  the  final  settlement  of  the  Canon 
of  Holy  Scripture.  In  short,  the  earliest  life  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  was  taught  and  nourished  by  personal  teachers  to  whom 
a  Divine  trust  was  held  to  have  been  committed.  But  the 
Church  Catholic  won  her  way  to  the  world's  heart,  led  by  the 
ministry,  taught  by  them  orally,  fed   sacramentally.  and  not  as 


330  The  Church  Review, 

aoreeing  in  a  confession  of  faith  modelled  on  a  book  not  then 
complered  as  to  the  Canon  of  its  contents.  Hence  the  ministry 
would  come  first  in  the  general  treatment  of  Christian  unity,  and 
the  other  articles  in  reverse  order.  The  early  Church  came  as  a 
Divine  messenger  to  sorrowing,  sin-laden  souls,  and  she  gave  that 
message  with  its  teaching  of  the  Master's  love  and  death  first, 
then  formulated  her  Faith  and  finally  her  sacred  books.  It  can, 
then,  hardly  compass  the  idea  of  the  Bishops'  Declaration  to 
confine  the  discussion  to  any  unity  of  merely  the  other  non- 
Roman  Communions  and  our  own.  In  their  view  unity  means 
the  unity  of  all  the  "  divided  branches  of  Christendom."  Hence 
that  unity,  to  be  possible,  must  base  itself  on  truths  existing  and 
accepted  prior  to  any  division  of  the  East  and  West.  The  area  of 
such  a  basis  of  unity  will,  be  therefore  narrow,  and  hence  the 
Bishops  formulate  the  Declaration  in  only  four  points.  These 
granted  and  acted  upon,  reunited  Christendom  may  then  give 
her  answer  to  such  questions  as  are  truly  questions  of  each  age. 
But  no  answers  to  these  '*  burning  questions"  will  bring  convic- 
tion to  the  thoughtful  sceptic  when  he  realizes  that  they,  what- 
ever such  answers  may  be,  are  the  replies  of  a  yet  divided 
Church.  Is  there,  then,  any  formula  of  doctrine  so  a  part  of  the 
life  of  the  "  undivided  Catholic  Church  during  the  first  ages  of 
its  existence  "  that  its  statements  may  form  an  adequate  and 
hence  the  **  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith  "  as  a 
basis  of  doctrinal  unity?  The  Bishops  express  their  belief  that 
the  Nicene  Creed  is  thus  adequate,  and  hence  sufficient. 

The  object  to  be  sought  would  seem  to  be  a  body  of  doc- 
trine about  which  there  may  be  practical  unanimity.  Such  we 
believe  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  to  be.  Now,  the  objections  to  this 
Creed  are  either  to  its  lack  of  completeness  or  its  too  great 
philosophic  use  of  terms.  But  what  is  a  creed?  Is  it  a  com- 
plete body  of  dogma?  History  does  not  show  any  such  idea  of 
a  creed.  The  history  of  dogma  and  the  history  of  law  run 
parallel  in  this  respect.  In  law  there  is  a  body  of  common-law 
and  statute  enactments  in  special  cases.  So  is  it  in  the  history 
of  dogma.  There  are  a  number  of  doctrines  so  inwrought  into 
the  life  and  consciousness  of  the  Church  that  they  are  a  body 
of  common  law  of  doctrine.  Then  there  are  the  Creeds,  as  the 
Church's  statute  law  of  doctrine,  —  positive  statements  of  the  Faith 
as  the  answer  q{  the  Church  to  the  denials  of  Jieresy.  Among  the 
unquestioned  doctrines  of  the  early  Church  were  those  of  the 


The  Nicaie  Creed.  331 

Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  Regeneration,  the  Sacraments  as 
media  of  Dixine  grace,  the  Eucharist  as  the  great  Christian  pure 
offering  or  unbloody  sacrifice,  and  the  Atonement  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  our  Hlessed  LoKl).  These  truths  stand  to  the  Creed  very 
much  as  the  idea  of  uniformity  in  Nature  and  the  idea  of  cause 
and  effect  do  to  scientific  thought.  I  have  not  herein  included 
the  doctrine  of  the  Ministry,  because  it  is  now  under  discussion, 
though  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  that  it  too  belongs  in  the 
same  category.  It  may  be  well  to  call  attention  here  to  the 
difference  between  the  popular  idea  of  the  formation  of  a  creed 
and  the  fact  of  history  on  such  formation.  In  the  popular  idea 
a  creed  is  the  result  of  separate  votes  on  the  various  articles. 
The  history  of  the  Councils  shows,  however,  that  the  Creeds 
were  simply  a  statement  of  certain  dogmas  as  having  been  held 
by  the  Church  '*  everywhere,  always,  and  by  all,"  and  hence  as 
dogma. 

The  Creed  of  Nicaea  is  then  simply  a  set  of  facts  witnessed 
to  by  various  witnesses  from  widely  separated  regions  of  the 
world,  and  all  the  witnesses  agree  in  the  one  teaching.  The 
question  at  Nicaea  was,  What  has  been  always  and  is  now  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  Divinity  of  CHRIST?  The  Council 
simply  witnessed  to  a  set  of  facts,  but  did  not  decree  a  confession 
of  faith  in  the  popular  sense  of  the  words.  What  is  the  truth  as 
we  have  received  it  unchanged  from  Apostolic  times?  was  the 
real  question  at  Nicaea.  The  fact  of  there  being  such  a  body  of 
continuous  accepted  truth  was  then  proven  t»y  the  witness  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council.  The  continuity  of  truth  there  witnessed 
to  gave  the  name  of  dogma,  or  received  and  accepted  truth,  to 
the  science  of  theology  as  the  permanent  name  for  revealed 
truth  as  distinct  from  developed  opinion.  In  my  opinion  this  is 
the  real  reason  for  the  Bishops  naming  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the 
doctrinal  basis,  —  that  it  is  in  itself  a  statement  of  universally 
received  truths  as  dogma,  not  as  the  result  of  any  modern  theory 
of  development.  And  just  here  will  be  found  to  be  the  difficulty 
in  its  acceptance  by  the  other  Christian  bodies  of  the  non-Roman 
Churches.  It  may  not  be  stated  explicitly,  but  the  actual  obstacle 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  Nicene  Creed  is  in  the  character  of  its 
contents  as  dogma,  —  continuous  and  hence  logically  involving  a 
continuous  body  holding  it,  and  a  continuous  ministry  teaching 
it  as  a  deposit  of  truth  handed  down  from  Apostolic  times. 
This  idea  of  dogma  is  expressed  exactly  by  the  language  of  the 


332  The  Church  Review, 

Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  "  This  is  the  Faith  of  the 
Fathers.  This  is  the  Faith  of  the  Apostles.  We  all  assent  to 
this.  We  all  hold  this."  Again  they  speak  of  the  Creed  as 
coming  from  preceding  Councils,  as  set  forth  "for  the  con- 
firming of  our  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Faith."  ^ 

The  Nicene  Creed,  then,  seems  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
what  the  Bishops  term  '*  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian 
Faith  "  in  that  it  accepts  Christian  truth  as  dogma  delivered  in 
continuous  line   of  witness  at  a  period  when  there  were  no  divi- 
sions of  Christendom  as  an  organic  body.     The  confessions  of 
one  kind  and  another,  valuable  as  they  are  for  the  history  of 
Christian  opinion,  cover  an  area  of  opinion  so  large,  crowded 
with  philosophical  issues,  and  about  which  there  has  never  been 
any  substantial  agreement  of  the  vast  majority  of  Christendom, 
that   they   cannot   form   a   basis    of  mutual    acceptance.     The 
Nicene   Creed,   on   the  other  hand,  gives  the  universally  held 
dogma  on  the  Persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Church  as  the 
Body  of  Christ,  remission  of  sin,  and  eternal  life  as  the  crown 
of  hope.     Is  there  any  more  needed  to  meet  the  practical  wants 
of  any  life  seeking  the  full  enrichment  of  its  nature  in  the  higher 
spiritual  work  of  a  Christian?     There  are,  it  is  true,  questions 
that  emerge  in  the  sphere  of  speculative  and  comparative  the- 
ology which  the  Nicene  Creed  does  not  deal  with  ;   but  these  are 
not  such  as  touch  the  heart  of  a  sin-sick  humanity  which  longs 
for  a  positive  voice  that  shall  echo  the  blessing  of  old  to  every 
home,  —  Peace  be  to    this   house!     In  every  line  of  scientific 
thought  to-day  there  may  be  seen  a  tendency  to  unity  and  the 
narrowing  of  the  area  of  accepted  scientific  truth.     We  are  told 
that  the  Christian  thought  of  the  age  needs  some  restatement 
to  meet  the  present  needs.     Let  us   then  admit  this  need  as 
seen  in  the  idea  of  unity  and  a  narrowing  of  the  area  of  dog- 
ma.    What,  then,  meets  this  dual  idea  as  fully  as  the  Nicene 
Creed?     The  Bishops  do  not  say  that  this  Creed  is  the  perfec- 
tion of  complete  statement  of  all  possible  speculative  teaching. 
They  affirm  it  to  be  the  sufficient,  that  is,  adequate,  statement 
of  the  Christian  Faith.     Adequate  or  sufficient  for  what?     For 
the  daily  and  practical  needs  of  all  souls  striving  to  deepen  their 
spiritual  life,  until  they  come  to  realize,  at  least  in  a  measure, 
the  strength  of  the   glowing  words  of  S.  Paul,  **  For  to  me  to 
live  is  Christ."     But  there  is  a  deeper  objection  to  the  Nicene 

^  Hardomni  Acta  Conciliorum,  torn.  ii.  pp.  45 1,  456. 


The  Nicene  Creed,  333 

Creed,  perhaps,  in  the  minds  of  many  who  are  luA  ready  to 
accept  it.  The  objection  is  not  so  stated  in  words,  but  1  beHeve 
it  a  real  fact  in  the  thought  of  the  day.  It  is  to  the  truth  of 
the  Creed  as  objective  and  therefore  positive.  If  the  Nicene 
Creed  be  accepted  as  dogma,  objective  and  positive  truth,  it 
will  carry  with  it  certain  obligations  and  be  subject  to  the  intcr- 
pretatio)i  of  the  day  in  which  it  was  set  forth.  Let  us  be  frank 
with  our  brethren  of  every  Christian  name.  Better  frank,  open 
difference  than  to  have  half-hearted  acceptance,  a  sort  of  armed 
neutrality,  or  an  acceptance  that  explains  away  tJie  Creed  itself. 
There  is  an  abundance  of  that  kind  of  so-called  acceptance 
already.  There  is  a  common  expression,  **  I  am  not  under  any 
obligation  to  do  this  or  that,  for  I  do  not  accept  such  a  truth  or 
statement."  The  true  under-lying  premise  of  this  statement  is 
this,  that  only  is  true  as  the  person  accepts  it,  or  in  other  words, 
truth  is  subjective,  not  objective,  and  being  subjective,  is  open  to 
constant  revision.  If  this  theory  be  true,  the  Nicene  Creed  can- 
not be  accepted,  for  it  is  a  statement  of  truth  as  positive,  objec- 
tive, and  hence  as  dogma  or  received  truth,  a  deposit  of  the 
Faith.  The  real  issue  is  whether  Christian  truth  is  objective  and 
hence  continuous  and  delivered  by  authority,  or  subjective  and 
hence  constantly  subject  to  revision  and  development.  If  the 
latter,  then  there  can  be  no  absolute  and  positive  truth  which 
can  be  traced  as  held  by  the  early  Church  as  a  deposit  of  Faith 
once  for  all  delivered.  But  is  not  all  truth  objective?  In  no 
other  line  of  thought  but  that  of  Christian  truth  do  men  accept 
the  idea  that  the  obligation  of  acceptance  is  based  upon  per- 
sonal reception  or  rejection.  In  physical  science,  law,  and 
medicine  we  admit  the  existence  of  truth  utterly  independent 
of  whether  men  accept  it  or  not.  Do  we  not  admit  the  law  of 
gravity  or  the  law  of  the  circulation  of  the  blood  as  objective 
or  existent  independent  of  its  reception  or  rejection  by  any  one? 
Equally  that  truth  which,  in  religion,  is  to  be  the  motive-power 
to  higher  aspiration,  nobler  thought,  and  holier  living  should 
be  objective  and  hence  positive,  therefore  dogma.  If,  then, 
Christian  truth  is  a  body  of  teaching  handed  down,  objective 
and  therefore  dogmatic,  we  ought  to  be  able  to  find  some  body 
of  such  dogma  so  well  attested  and  continuous  in  history  that 
it  may  be  a  basis  of  doctrinal  unity.  Such  a  body  of  truth  we 
hold  the  Nicene  Creed  to  be.  The  development  discussed  by 
the  early  Fathers  as  admissible  is  that  of  the  method  of  statement^ 


334  The  Church  Review. 

defence,  or  explanation  of  already  accepted  dogma,  not  a  develop- 
ment of  the  body  of  dogma.  This  idea  of  development  is  thus 
expressed  by  S.  Vincent  of  Leims,  "  But  the  Church  as  a  care- 
ful and  cautious  guardian  of  the  dogma  deposited  in  her  keeping 
never  changes  anything,  nought  diminishes,  adds  nothing." 
"  Finally,  what  else  has  she  ever  attempted  by  the  decrees  of 
Councils  but  that  the  same  tiling  might  afterward  be  more  dili- 
o-ently  believed  which  before  was  simply  accepted  ?''^  The 
Nicene  Creed  was  the  symbol  of  the  Faith  accepted  by  all  parts 
of  the  Church  as  distinct  from  dogmas  peculiar  to  any  one  part  of 
the  Church,  — that  is,  as  held  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  Church 
as  distinct  from  the  views  of  any  private  doctor,  or  any  school 
of  thought  in  the  Church,  as  held  continuously  in  history  as 
opposed  to  doctrine  held  during  recent  ages  or  for  a  limited 
period  of  time.  A  careful  study  of  the  Commonitorinm  of 
S.  Vincent  shows  this,  we  believe,  to  be  the  true  meaning  of 
the  famous  *'  Quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omnibus 
creditum  est." 

The  admission  of  the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  sufficient  state- 
ment of  the  Christian  Faith  will,  we  firmly  believe,  mean  the 
taking  of  a  new  point  of  view  as  to  the  character  of  what  is 
held  to  be  essential  truth,  and  involve  the  recognition  of  its 
essentiality  as  consisting  in  its  being  positive,  objective,  contin- 
uous, and  hence  that  it  is  dogma,  not  evolved  opinion,  whether 
that  evolution  be  in  and  from  the  consciousness  of  the  Church 
as  the  body  of  the  believers  or  an  evolution  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  If,  then,  the  Nicene  Creed  be  thus  accepted,  there 
will  logically  follow  the  question.  To  whom  was  such  a  body  of 
truth  committed  and  by  whom  handed  down  during  the  period 
of  the  "undivided  Catholic  Church"?  Here  will  emerge  the 
question  of  the  Historic  Episcopate  as  the  witness  to  the  Faith; 
and  the  article  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  **  One  Holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church,"  will  prove  a  grave  question  to  our  non- 
Episcopal  brethren  unless  our  Bishops  are  ready  to  interpret 
these  words  in  an  etymological  sense  rather  than  in  the  histori- 
cal, which  we  do  not  suppose  for  a  moment.  If  the  Episcopate 
be,  as  Dr.  Charles  A.  Briggs  defines  it,  **  the  execntive  head  of 
the  one  Order  of  ministers','  then  there  will  be  no  connection 
between  the  body  of  dogma  and  the  witness  of  the  Episcopate 
to  such  dogma.     For  in  his  view  the  Episcopate  is  an  office,  not 

1  Commonitorium  Vincentii  Liv.  pp.  219,  220.     Edition  H.  Hunter,  S.  J. 


The  Nicene  Creed.  335 

an  Order.  Tlircc  fourths  of  the  Christian  world  lias  for  cen- 
turies held,  and  still  holds,  that  the  Episcopate  is  an  Order,  not 
merely  an  exeeiitive  headship  or  offiee,  as  may  be  seen  by  the 
Ordinals  and  Canons  of  the  Greek,  Roman,  and  An,L,dican 
Churches  and  the  Old  Catholic  Church.  The  plain  truth  is 
that  in  the  treatment  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and  its  fuller  dis- 
cussion, it  will  be  found  that  the  Faith  and  the  Episcopate  are 
inseparably  connected.  And  we  believe  that  no  less  a  convic- 
tion than  that  the  two,  Faith  and  Order,  were  thus  connected 
underlies  the  statement  of  the  Bishops'  Declaration  concerning 
the  four  points,  "  which  principles  [they  say]  we  believe  to  be 
the  substantial  deposit  of  Christjan  Faith  and  Order  committed 
by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  to  the  Church  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  therefore  incapable  of  compromise  or  surrender  by 
those  who  have  been  ordained  to  be  its  stewards  and  trustees  for 
the  common  and  equal  benefit  of  all  men."  This  joining  of 
Faith  and  Order  by  the  Bishops  is  very  significant  of  their  con- 
viction that  the  Episcopate  is  a  witness  to  the  trutJi,  not  merely 
an  executive  office.  Still  further  is  it  significant  that  the  Declara- 
tion of  the  Bishops  passed  unanimously,  so  far  as  the  Journal 
shows.  In  the  time  at  our  disposal,  snatched  from  pressing  en- 
gagements, we  cannot  attempt  to  elaborate  the  further  theologi- 
cal and  canonical  reasons  for  holding  the  Nicene  Creed  to  be 
"  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  Faith,"  hence  we  must 
rest  the  case  on  the  four  suggestions  of  this  paper. 

In  our  view  the  sufficiency  of  this  Creed  as  a  basis  of  doctrinal 
unity  consists  in  its  being  the  accepted  voice  of  the  whole  body 
of  historic  Christianity,  when  passed,  and  therefore  a  basis  for 
unity  of  all  Christian  bodies ;  in  its  character  as  positive,  con- 
tinuous truth,  therefore  dogma  as  opposed  to  modern  de- 
velopments, whether  in  the  Roman  or  Protestant  theories  of 
development ;  in  the  narrow  area  of  dogma  to  which  assent  is 
asked,  thus  leaving  questions  of  speculative  theology  untouched  ; 
and  finally  in  the  fact  that  this  Creed  has  the  witness  of  that 
Historic  Episcopate  which  appears  in  sixteen  centuries  of  Canon 
Eaw  as  the  highest  Order  of  the  ministry.  Law  is  enacted 
upon  the  basis  of  the  conviction  of  certain  facts  as  true  on  the 
part  of  the  sovereign  body,  and  thus  accepted  by  the  persons 
for  whom  it  was  enacted.  So  far  no  Canon  Law,  accepted  by 
the  Church  Catholic,  has  been  found  which  fails  to  state  the 
Episcopate  as  the   highest  Order  and  the  ruling  power,  distinct 


336  The  Church  Review. 

in  Order  from  the  Presbyterate  and  Diaconate.  The  Faith 
and  Holy  Order  are  thus  historically  bound  together,  and  as 
such  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  together.  This  paper  will 
perhaps  sound  a  note  of  discord  in  the  harmony  of  present 
voices  attuned  to  the  hope  of  unity.  But  in  view  of  the  Decla- 
ration of  the  House  of  Bishops,  the  history  of  our  Canon  Law, 
and  the  actual  practice  of  the  Anglican  Church,  and  in  view  of 
the  relation  of  this  Church  to  ancient  Christianity  as  seen  in 
"  the  undivided  Catholic  Church,"  no  other  presentment  of  the 
case  would  seem  to  me  loyal  to  the  Church  whose  servant  I  am, 
or  fair  and  just  to  those  who  cannot  yet  accept  the  *'  Faith  and 
Order  committed  by  CHRIST  apd  His  Apostles  to  the  Church 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  In  conclusion  permit  me  to  express 
the  earnest  conviction  that  mutual  respect  for  honest  differences 
between  brethren  of  different  Christian  names  is  better  than  the 
surrender  of  any  truth  which  we  hold  upon  such  authority  as 
that  on  which  the  Faith  and  Order  of  the  undivided  Catholic 
Church  rests.  Unity  won  by  minimizing  the  real  force  and 
meaning  of  hitherto  vital  doctrines  will  be  valueless  to  all  parties 
now  discussing  Christian  unity.  Perhaps  one  of  the  best 
results  of  this  discussion  may  be  found  to  be  a  clearer  idea  of 
the  exact  reasons  v/hy  unity  is  not  a  very  present  probability, 
and  an  opportunity  of  seeing  with  what  grasp  and  conviction 
of  certitude  different  religious  bodies  hold  to-day  what  they 
have  for  the  past  called  essential  truths. 

F.  P.  Davenport. 


"€\)tn  pointy"' 

An  Essay.  Read  before  the  Associate  Alumni  of  the  General  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  in  the  Seminary  Chapel,  New  York,  May  31,  1887,  by 
the  Rev.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  S.  T.  D. 

FOR  many  years  three  points  of  importance  have  presented 
themselves  to  my  mind  with  great  force,  in  considering 
the  relations  of  different  parts  of  Christendom  to  one  another; 
and  yet  I  do  not  remember  having  ever  seen  that  attention  paid 
to  them  which  they  seem  to  me  to  deserve.  Nor  shall  I  be 
able  to  do  them  justice  now.  The  full  consideration  of  them 
would  require  far  more  of  time  and  of  books  than  a  country 
parson  can  command,  and  far  more  of  opportunity  to  listen 
than  our  brief  annual  meeting  could  afford.  All  I  can  do, 
therefore,  is  to  set  before  you  a  few  sketch-like  hints,  which, 
perhaps,  some  one  having  more  leisure  and  learning  may  work 
up  hereafter  in  a  manner  not  now  possible  to  me. 

I.  The  first  of  these  three  points  is  in  regard  to  the  loss  of 
Apostolic  order  in  the  Reformation  movement  on  the  Conti- 
nent,—  the  chief  point  of  organic  difference  between  the  An- 
glican Reformation  and  the  others.  It  is  commonly  said  that 
this  loss  was  a  matter  oi  necessity y  —  that  ih^y  had  io  do  without 
Bishops  on  the  Continent,  because  none  of  the  Bishops  would 
take  part  with  the  Reformers.  The  point  I  would  make  is,  that 
historically  this  is  not  true.  There  were  Bishops  enough  to 
have  preserved  the  Apostolic  succession  for  them,  if  they  had 
cared  to  do  it;  and  the  neglect  was  therefore  due  to  other 
causes. 

The  full  proof  of  this  can  hardly  be  given  without  a  minute 
search  of  the  more  diffuse  records  of  the  times ;   for  our  general 

1  These  "Three  Points"  strike  me  as  being  of  such  value  in  themselves,  as  hints 
to  historical  students,  that  I  have  ventured  to  depart  from  our  usual  custom,  and 
instead  of  confining  their  consideration  to  the  members  of  the  Associate  Alumni  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary,  I  ask  for  them  the  wider  circulation  of  the 
Church  Review.  One  who  was  present  at  the  delivery  of  this  paper,  and  had 
been  for  many  years  an  able  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  assured  me  that 
each  of  the  "  Three  Points  "  was  new  to  him.  — J.  H.  H. 

22 


33^  The  Church  Review. 

historians  would  hardly  stop  to  notice  facts  which  are  not  in  the 
front  rank  of  importance  from  their  point  of  view.  The  facts 
which  I  shall  lay  before  you  to-day  are  gathered  mainly  from 
the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Baird's  History  of  the  Rise  of  the  Hiigiie- 
jiots  of  France,  —  a  work  in  two  octavo  volumes,  covering  the 
history  of  only  sixty-two  years  in  all,  and  thus  affording  unusual 
room  for  minuteness  of  detail,  although  Mr.  Baird  is  not  a 
Churchman,  and  does  not  dream  of  making  out  the  point  of 
which  he  so  unconsciously  furnishes  the  evidence. 

The  two  who  are  named  first  among  the  French  Reformers, 
are  the  learned  Lefevre  of  Etaples  and  the  ardent  Farel.  The 
third,  he  says,  was  Guillaume  Brigonnet,  Bishop  of  Meaux. 
His  father  had  been  a  Cardinal,  as  well  as  Abbot  of  St.  Ger- 
main-des-Pres  and  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  and  had  anointed 
King  Louis  XH.  at  his  coronation.  As  Cardinal,  he  had  headed 
the  French  party  in  the  Conclave,  and  in  the  service  of  his 
King  had  faced  the  dangers  of  an  open  quarrel  with  the  Pope. 
The  Cardinal  was  now  dead,  having  left  to  Guillaume  —  born 
before  his  father  had  taken  Holy  Orders  —  a  good  measure  of 
that  royal  favor  which  he  had  himself  enjoyed.  He  was  made 
Archdeacon  of  Rheims  and  of  Avignon,  Abbot  of  St.  Germain- 
des-Pres,  and  lastly  Bishop  of  Lodeve  and  Meaux.  He  showed 
early  his  reforming  tendencies  by  his  efforts  to  make  the  luxu- 
rious inmates  of  St.  Germain  observe  better  discipline.  Bri- 
gonnet  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Meaux  in  March,  1516,  and 
about  the  same  time  was  sent  by  King  Francis  I.  as  special 
envoy  to  treat  with  the  Pope.  He  had  been  at  Rome  on  simi- 
lar business  in  the  time  of  King  Louis  XIL  The  knowledge 
thus  gained  of  the  way  in  which  things  were  done  at  Rome, 
convinced  him  of  the  urgent  need  of  reform ;  and  he  resolved 
to  begin  the  work  in  his  own  Diocese. 

He  invited  both  Lefevre  and  Farel  to  make  their  home  at* 
Meaux ;  and  they  came,  followed  soon  by  Michel  d'Arande, 
Gerard  Roussel,  and  others  of  the  same  sort.  "  A  new  era," 
says  Baird,  "  now  dawned  upon  the  neglected  Diocese  of  Meaux. 
Bishop  Brigonnet  was  fully  possessed  by  his  newborn  zeal. 
The  King's  mother  and  his  only  sister  had  honored  him  with  a 
visit  not  long  after  Lefevre's  arrival,  and  had  left  him  confident 
of  their  powerful  support  in  his  intended  reforms.  '  I  assure 
you,'  Margaret  of  Angouleme  wrote  him  a  month  later,  'that 
the  King  and  Madame  are  entirely  decided  to  let  it  be  under- 


"  Three  Pointsr  339 

stood  that  the  truth  of  Goi>  is  not  heresy.'  And  a  few  weeks 
later  the  same  princely  correspondent  declared  that  her  mother 
and  brother  were  *  more  intent  than  ever  upon  the  reformation 
of  the  Church.'  "  The  effect  of  the  new  preachin^^  at  IVIeaux 
was  great.  The  wool-carders,  weavers,  and  fullers  accepted  it 
with  delight ;  the  day-laborers  flocked  from  the  neighborhood 
at  harvest-time,  and  carried  back  the  new  enthusiasm  to  their 
secluded  homes.  Bishop  Brigonnet  himself  was  active  in  pro- 
moting the  evangelical  work,  preaching  against  the  most  fla- 
grant abuses,  and  commending  the  other  preachers  whom  he 
had  invited.  He  actually  said  to  his  flock:  "Even  if  I,  your 
Bishop,  should  change  my  speech  and  teaching,  beware  that 
you  change  not  with  me !  " 

Under  Brigonnet's  protection  Lefevre  made  and  published 
(in  1523)  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  and  then  of  the 
whole  Bible,  into  French,  which  was  earlier  than  a  similar  work 
was  done  in  England.  The  Bishop  freely  supplied  copies  to 
those  who  were  too  poor  to  buy.  He  introduced  the  French 
Scriptures  into  the  Churches  of  Meaux,  where  the  innovation  of 
reading  the  lessons  in  a  tongue  that  they  could  understand,  as- 
tounded the  common  people.  The  delighted  Lefevre  writes  to  a 
distant  friend  :  "  You  can  scarcely  imagine  with  what  ardor  GOD 
is  moving  the  minds  of  the  simple  in  some  places  to  embrace 
His  Word,  since  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  have  been 
published  in  French.  .  .  .  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  hin- 
der the  work,  under  cover  of  the  authority  of  Parliament;  but 
our  most  generous  King  has  become  in  this  matter  the  defender 
of  Christ's  cause,  declaring  it  to  be  his  pleasure  that  his  king- 
dom shall  hear  the  Word  of  GOD  freely,  and  without  hindrance, 
in  the  language  which  it  understands.  At  present,  throughout 
our  entire  Diocese,  on  feast-days,  and  especially  on  Sundays, 
both  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  are  read  to  the  people  in  the  ver- 
nacular tongue,  and  the  Parish  Priest  adds  a  word  of  exhortation 
to  the  Epistle  or  Gospel,  or  both,  at  his  discretion." 

All  this  was  far  stronger  encouragement  than  the  great 
Catholic  Revival  of  our  own  day  ever  received  from  any  Bishop 
in  its  earlier  years.  True,  stern  and  formidable  opposition  soon 
arose.  Briconnet  was  cited  by  the  Parliament  of  Paris  to  an- 
swer, in  secret  session,  before  a  Commission.  He  was  dealt 
with  in  such  wise  as  to  break  his  courage,  and  stop  the  public 
instruction  of  the  people  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.     He  was  ac- 


340  The  Church  Review, 

quitted  of  all  charge  of  heresy,  indeed,  though  they  made  him 
pay  two  hundred  livres  as  the  expense  of  bringing  to  trial  the 
heretics  whom  he  had  helped  to  make.  A  man  converted  in 
that  way  is  very  likely  to  be  "  of  the  same  opinion  still." 

But  Briconnet  was  not  the  only  Bishop  who  sympathized  with 
reform.  He  was  a  noble  as  well  as  a  Bishop;  but  the  same 
side  was  to  be  taken  by  one  nobler  than  he,  and  higher  both  in 
Church  and  State.  This  was  Odet  de  Coligny,  the  elder  brother 
of  the  Admiral  Coligny  and  of  D'Andelot,  of  the  blood  roykl, 
who  was  created  Cardinal  of  Chatillon  at  the  early  age  of  thh'- 
tceiZy  and  afterward  Archbishop  of  Toulouse,  and  Bishop  and 
Count  of  Beauvais.  He  was  at  first  a  devout  Romanist,  but 
early  showed  sympathies  with  the  Reformation,  and  ended  by 
going  over  to  it  altogether.  As  early  as  155 1  he  was  pretty  well 
known  to  be  in  sympathy  with  the  ''  Lutherans."  In  Easter 
week,  1 561,  there  were  outbreaks  of  violence  against  the  Protest- 
ants in  many  parts  of  France,  one  of  the  most  noted  of  which 
was  at  Beauvais,  Chatillon's  own  cathedral.  He  had  openly 
fostered  the  preachers  of  reform  in  his  Diocese.  ''  But,"  says 
Baird,  "  even  the  personal  popularity  of  the  brother  of  Coligny 
and  DAndelot  could  not,  in  the  present  instance,  secure  im- 
munity for  the  preachers  who  proclaimed  the  Gospel  under  his 
auspices.  Incited  by  the  Priesthood,  the  people  overleaped  all 
the  bounds  within  w^iich  they  had  hitherto  restrained  them- 
selves. The  occasion  was  a  rumor  spread  abroad,  that  the 
Cardinal,  instead  of  attending  the  public  celebration  of  the 
Mass  in  his  Cathedral  Church,  had,  with  his  domestics,  partici- 
pated in  a  private  communion  in  his  owii  palace,  and  that  every 
communicant  had,  at  the  hands  of  the  Abbe  Boutillier,  received 
both  elements  *  after  the  fashion  of  Geneva.'  Hereupon  the 
mob,  gathering  in  great  force,  assailed  a  private  house  in  which 
there  lived  a  Priest  accused  of  teaching  the  children  the  doc- 
trines of  religion  from  the  reformed  catechisms.  The  unhappy 
Adrien  Fourre  —  such  was  the  schoolmaster's  name  —  was 
killed ;  and  the  rabble,  rendered  more  savage  through  their 
first  taste  of  blood,  dragged  his  corpse  to  the  public  square, 
where  it  was  burned  by  the  hands  of  the  city  hangman.  Cha- 
tillon himself  incurred  no  little  risk  of  meeting  a  similar  fate. 
But  the  strength  of  the  Episcopal  palace,  and  the  sight  of  their 
Bishop  clothed  in  his  Cardinal's  costume,  appeased  the  mob  for 
the  time;   and  before  the  morrow  came,  a  goodly  number  of 


"  TJiree  Points^  341 

the  neighboring  nobles  had  ralhed  for  his  defence."  Surely, 
one  of  the  most  striking  incidents  of  those  strange  days  was  to 
see  a  Roman  Cardinal  receiving  the  Huguenot  Communion,  and 
afterward  masquerading  in  his  Cardinal's  vestments  to  prevent 
his  being  torn  in  pieces  by  the  rabble  of  his  own  people  for  the 
act! 

Again,  in  the  preparations  for  the  famous  Colloquy  of  Poissy, 
in  the  same  year,  1 561,  when  the  assembled  l^ishops  were  about 
to  join  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  we  read  that  "  Cardinal  Chatillon 
and  tivo  other  Bishops  insisted  upon  communicating  under  both 
forms;  and  when  their  demand  was  refused,  they  went  to  an- 
other Church,  and  celebrated  the  Divine  Ordinance  with  many 
of  the  nobility,  all  partaking  both  of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine, 
thus  earning  for  themselves  the  nickname  of  Protestants." 

Two  years  later,"  1563,  Pope  Pius  IV.  issued  a  bull,  calling  for 
summary  proceedings  against  sundry  French  Bishops,  Cardinal 
Chatillon  being  at  the  head  of  the  list,  followed  by  seven  others  ; 
but  as  he  was  rash  enough  to  insert  the  Queen  of  Navarre  also, 
the  French  Court  made  such  a  vigorous  response  that  the  bull 
was  either  recalled  or  dropped,  and  the  proceedings  against  the 
Bishops  w^ere  indefinitely  suspended. 

In  the  year  1565,  the  Pope's  new  Nuncio  demanded  that  the 
red  cap  should  be  taken  from  the  Cardinal  of  Chatillon.  But 
the  latter,  who  chanced  to  be  at  court,  replied  that  "  what  he 
enjoyed,  he  enjoyed  by  gift  of  the  crown  of  France,  wdth  which 
the  Pope  had  nothing  to  do."  And  his  uncle,  the  old  Con- 
stable, was  even  more  emphatic.  "  The  Pope,"  said  he,  **  has 
often  troubled  the  quiet  of  this  realm,  but  I  trust  he  shall  not 
be  able  to  trouble  it  at  this  time.  I  am  myself  a  Papist;  but  if 
the  Pope  and  his  ministers  go  about  again  to  disturb  the  king- 
dom, my  sword  shall  be  Huguenot.  My  nephew  shall  give  up 
neither  cap  nor  dignity  which  he  has,  for  the  Pope,  seeing  the 
King's  edict  gives  him  liberty  to  keep  them." 

Three  years  later,  1568,  it  seems  that  Cardinal  Chatillon  had 
been  excommunicated  by  the  Pope,  condemned  of  schism,  and 
was  dead  in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  —  as  laid  down  by  the  Pope,  — 
and  Catherine  de  Medici  had  promised  to  surrender  him  into 
the  Pope's  hands.  Chatillon  had  come  to  court,  under  the 
King's  safe-conduct,  to  treat  of  peace  after  the  second  civil  war. 
Cardinal  Santa  Croce,  the  Nuncio,  entering  the  council-cham- 
ber, boldly  demanded  the  performance  of  Catherine's  promise 


342  The  Church  Review. 

then  and  there.  Catherine  did  not  deny  the  promise,  but  said 
that  this  was  an  unsuitable  time  for  its  fulfilment,  owing  to  the 
King's  safe-conduct.  To  this  the  Nuncio  replied  that  no  respect 
ought  to  be  had  toward  Chatillon,  for  he  was  an  "  excommuni- 
cate person,"  condemned  of  schism,  and  dead  in  the  eyes  of 
the  law.  At  this  point  the  Duke  de  Montmorency  broke  out: 
**  Madame,"  he  said,  "  is  it  possible  that  the  Cardinal  Chatillon's 
delivery  should  come  in  question,  being  warranted  by  the  King 
and  your  Majesty  to  the  contrary,  and  I  myself  being  made  a 
mean  therein?  Wherefore  this  matter  is  odious  to  be  talked  of, 
and  against  the  law  of  arms  and  all  good  civil  policy;  and  I 
must  needs  repute  them  my  enemies  who  go  about  to  make  me 
falsify  my  promise  once  made."  After  these  plain  words,  Santa 
Croce  departed,  without  attaining  his  most  cruel  and  dishonor- 
able request. 

Later  in  the  same  year,  1568,  it  was  in  contemplation  to  seize 
Chatillon  in  his  Episcopal  palace  at  Beauvais.  The  third  civil 
war  was  then  raging.  But  he  received  timely  warning,  and  es- 
caped through  Normandy  to  England,  where  Queen  Elizabeth 
received  him  at  court  with  marks  of  distinguished  favor.  She 
lodged  him  in  Sion  House,  not  far  from  Hampton  Court,  and 
never  met  him  but  she  greeted  him  with  a  kiss ;  so  that  it  was 
commonly  said  that  the  ambassador  of  Conde  (then  in  rebellion 
against  his  King)  was  a  much  more  important  personage  than 
the  ambassador  of  the  King  of  France.  He  succeeded  in  get- 
ting Elizabeth  to  send  substantial  help  to  his  distressed  friends 
in  France. 

In  1570,  about  two  months  after  the  declaration  of  peace. 
Cardinal  Chatillon,  who  had  been  deprived  by  the  Pope  of  his 
seat  in  the  Roman  Conclave,  had  also  been  declared,  by  the 
Parliament  of  Paris,  on  motion  of  the  Cardinal  of  Bourbon,  to 
have  lost  his  Bishopric  of  Beauvais,  on  account  of  his  rebellion 
and  his  adoption  of  Protestant  sentiments.  All  such  judicial 
proceedings  had  indeed  been  declared  null  and  void  by  the 
terms  of  the  royal  pacification ;  but  the  Parliaments  were  very 
reluctant  to  yield  obedience  to  the  royal  edict.  The  King  sent 
orders  to  the  first  President  of  the  Parliament  to  wait  upon  him 
with  the  records.  And  when,  after  a  second  summons,  they 
were  brought,  the  King,  with  his  own  hands,  tore  out  and 
destroyed  every  page  that  contained  any  action  against  the 
Cardinal  of  Chatillon. 


"  Three  Poinlsy  343 

But  we  must  be  more  brief  in  other  cases ;  for  these  were  not 
all.  We  find  mention  made  of  Michel  d'Arande,  who  was  Bishop 
of  Saint  Paul-Trois-Chateaux,  in  Dauphiny,  and  yet  sympathized 
entirely  with  the  Reformers,  and  was  in  confidential  intercourse 
with  them;  also  of  Gerard  Roussel,  who  was  appointed  by  the 
Queen  of  Nav^arre  to  be  her  preacher  and  confessor,  and  rose  to 
be  Abbot  of  Clairac  and  Bishop  of  Oleron ;  yet  he  remained,  to 
his  death,  a  sincere  friend  of  the  Reformation.  In  his  own 
Diocese  he  set  the  example  of  a  faithful  pastor.  Iwen  so  bitter 
an  enemy  of  Protestantism  as  Florimond  de  Raemond,  contrast- 
ing Roussel's  piety  with  the  worldliness  of  the  sporting  French 
Bishops  of  the  period,  is  forced  to  admit  that  "  his  pack  of 
liounds  was  the  crowd  of  poor  men  and  women  whom  he  daily 
fed ;  his  horses  and  attendants  a  host  of  children  whom  he 
■caused  to  be  instructed  in  letters."  Another  prelate  is  men- 
tioned, the  Bishop  of  Senlis,  as  being  so  much  in  favor  with 
the  Queen  of  Navarre  that  he  translated  into  French  for  her  the 
book  of  "■  Hours,"  omitting  all  that  most  directly  countenanced 
superstition.  We  read  also  of  Cardinal  Sadolet,  Bishop  of  Car- 
pentras,  who  readily  certified  to  the  falsity  of  the  charges  made 
against  the  Waldenses,  exerted  his  influence  with  the  Vice- 
legate  to  induce  him  to  abandon  an  attack  on  one  of  their 
villages,  and  assured  the  inhabitants  that  he  firmly  intended, 
in  a  coming  visit  to  Rome,  to  secure  the  reformation  of  some 
incontestable  abuses. 

Another  prelate  we  read  of,  Chatellain,  Bishop  of  Macon, 
who  was  at  one  time  favorable  to  the  Reformation,  though 
his  courage  was  not  equal  to  his  convictions. 

Much  better  known,  however,  was  Montluc,  Bishop  of  Val- 
ence, who  in  1560,  when  the  Huguenots  petitioned  for  liberty 
of  worship,  was  their  warmest  and  most  uncompromising  ad- 
vocate. He  ''  drew  a  startling  contrast  between  the  means  that 
had  been  taken  to  propagate  the  new  doctrines,  and  those  by 
which  the  attempt  had  been  made  to  eradicate  them.  For 
thirty  years,  three  or  four  hundred  ministers  of  irreproachable 
morals,  indomitable  courage,  and  notable  diligence  in  the  study 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  had  been  attracting  disciples  by  the 
sweet  name  of  Jesus  continually  upon  their  lips,  and  had  easily 
gained  over  a  people  that  were  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd. 
Meanwhile,  Popes  had  been  engrossed  in  war,  and  in  sowing 
discord  between  princes;  the  ministers  of  justice  had  made  use 


344  1^^^^  Church  Review, 

of  the  severe  enactments  of  the  Kings  against  heresy,  to  enrich 
themselves  and  their  friends ;  and  Bishops,  instead  of  showing 
solicitude  for  their  flocks,  had  sought  only  to  preserve  their 
revenues.  Forty  Bishops  might  have  been  seen  at  one  time 
congregated  at  Paris,  and  indulging  in  scandalous  excesses, 
while  the  fire  was  kindling  in  their  Dioceses.  The  inferior 
clergy,  who  bought  their  curacies  at  Rome,  added  ignorance 
to  avarice.  The  ecclesiastical  office  became  odious  and  con- 
temptible, when  prelates  conferred  benefices  on  their  barbers, 
cooks,  and  footmen.  What  must  be  done  to  avert  the  just 
anger  of  GOD  ?  Let  the  King,  in  the  first  place,  see  that  God's 
name  be  no  longer  blasphemed  as  heretofore.  Let  God's  Word 
be  published  and  expounded.  Let  there  be  daily  sermons  in 
the  palace,  to  stop  the  mouths  of  those  who  assert  that,  near 
the  King,  God  is  never  spoken  of.  Let  the  singing  of  psalms 
take  the  place  of  the  foolish  songs  sung  by  the  maids  of  the 
queens;  for  to  prohibit  the  singing  of  psalms,  which  the 
Fathers  extol,  would  be  to  give  the  seditious  a  good  pretext 
for  saying  that  the  war  was  waged,  not  against  men,  but  against 
God,  inasmuch  as  the  publication  and  the  hearing  of  His  praises 
were  not  tolerated.  .  .  .  As  to  punishments,  while  the  seditious, 
who  took  up  arms  under  color  of  religion,  ought  to  be  repressed, 
experience  had  taught  how  unavailing  was  the  persecution  of 
those  who  embraced  their  views  from  conscientious  motives, 
and  history  showed  that  three  hundred  and  eighteen  Bishops  at 
the  Council  of  Nice,  one  hundred  and  fifty  at  Constantinople, 
and  six  hundred  and  thirty  at  Chalcedon,  refused  to  employ 
other  weapons,  against  the  worst  of  convicted  heretics,  than 
the  Word  of  GOD." 

This  eloquent  and  bold  harangue  of  the  Bishop  of  Valence 
was  followed,  in  the  same  discussion,  by  one  still  more  cogent, 
from  the  aged  and  virtuous  Marillac,  Archbisliop  of  Vienne.  He 
urged  *'  that  it  was  in  vain  to  expect  a  General  Council,  since, 
between  the  Pope,  the  Emperor,  the  Kings,  and  the  Lutherans, 
the  right  time,  place,  and  method  of  holding  it  could  never  be 
agreed  upon  by  all ;  and  France  was  like  a  man  desperately  ill, 
whose  fever  admitted  of  no  such  a  delay  as  that  a  physician 
might  be  called  in  from  a  distance.  Hence,  the  usual  resort  to 
a  National  Council,  in  spite  of  the  Pope's  discontent,  was  im- 
perative. France  could  not  ajford  to  die  in  order  to  please  his 
Holiness.     Meanwhile,  the  prelates  must  be  obliged  to  reside  in 


**  Three  Points T  345 

their  Dioceses,  nor  must  the  Itahaus  —  those  leeches  tlint  ab- 
sorbed one  third  of  all  the  benefices  and  an  infinite  number  of 
pensions  —  be  exempted  from  the  operation  (A  the  general  rule. 
Would  paid  troops  be  permitted  thus  to  absent  themselves  from 
their  posts  in  the  hour  of  dan<^er?  Simony  must  be  abolished 
at  once,  as  a  token  of  sincerity  in  the  desire  to  reform  the 
Church.  Otherwise  CllRlST  would  come  clown  and  dri\e  I  lis 
unw^urthy  servants  from  His  Church,  as  fie  once  drove  the 
money-changers  from  the  temple.  Especially  must  Churchmen 
repent  with  fasting,  and  take  up  the  Word  of  GuD,  which  is  a 
szvordy  whereas  at  present,"  said  the  speaker,  "  zve  have  only  the 
scabbard,  —  in  ^nitres  and  crosiers ,  in  rochets  and  tiaras.  .  .  .  He 
warned  the  King's  counsellors,  lest  the  people,  accustomed  to 
have  their  complaints  of  grievances  unattended  to,  should  begin 
to  lose  the  hope  of  relief;  and  lest  the  proverbial  promptness 
and  gentleness  w^iich  the  French  nation  had  always  shown  in 
meeting  the  King's  necessities,  should  be  so  badly  met  and  so 
frequently  offended  as  at  last  to  turn  into  rage  and  despair." 

Besides  all  these,  we  find  Du  Val,  Bishop  of  Seez  in  Nor- 
mandy, mentioned  in  the  same  group  with  Bishop  Montluc  of 
Valence,  and  that  Abbe  Boutillier  who  administered  the  Holy 
Communion  in  Genevan  fashion  to  Cardinal  Chatillon. 

A  very  high  authority  gives  us  some  other  names.  It  is  the 
bull  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  already  mentioned,  in  which,  after  Cardi- 
nal Chatillon,  he  adds  S.  Romain,  the  Archbishop  of  Aix, 
Montluc,  Bishop  of  Valence,  S.  Gelais,  Bishop  of  Uzes,  Rous- 
sel.  Bishop  of  Oleron,  D'Albret,  Bishop  of  Lescar,  Guillart, 
Bishop  of  Chartres,  and  Caraccioli,  Bishop  of  Troyes,  who  had 
resigned  his  Bishopric,  and  had  been  ordained  a  Protestant 
pastor,  —  eight  prelates   in  all. 

Besides  all  these,  Jervis,  in  his  History  of  the  Galilean 
Church,  gives  us  the  names  of  Jacques  Spifame,  Bishop  of 
Nevers,  Pelissier,  Bishop  of  Maguelonne,  Etienne  Poncher, 
Bishop  of  Paris  and  afterward  Archbishop  of  Sens,  as  sympa- 
thizing with  the  Reform  in  the  early  period  of  the  agitation; 
and   Barbangon,   Bishop   of  Pamiers,   in   the   later. 

We  have  now  enumerated  no  less  than  nineteen  prelates, 
among  whom  were  tJiree  Archbishops  and  tzvo  Cardinals,  who 
are  shown  to  have  sympathized  with  the  Reformation ;  and  of 
these,  no  less  than  eigJit  are  certified  to  us,  by  the  Pope  himself, 
as  Protestant  enough  to  be  excommunicated.     The  Reformed 


346  The  Church  Review. 

party,  therefore,  had  Bishops  enough  to  have  kept  up  the  Apos- 
toUc  succession,  had  they  chosen  so  to  do.  The  plea  of  necessity, 
because  they  had  no  Bishops,  is  utterly  idle.  They  had  them, 
but  they  would  njt  use  them.  There  is  not  recorded,  so  far  as  I 
have  read,  the  slightest  desire  on  the  part  of  the  sympathizing 
Bishops  to  retain  the  ancient  rights  of  their  Order  in  regard  to 
government  and  ordination  among  the  Reformed,  nor  the  slight- 
est desire  on  the  part  of  the  Reformed  to  have  them  do  so.  All 
consciousness  of  the  importance  of  the  question  of  Valid  Orders 
seems  to  have  been  so  utterly  lost  in  the  fiercer  controversies  of 
the  times  that  it  never  once  comes  to  the  surface.  Nay,  so  com- 
pletely was  it  ignored  that  we  find  one  of  the  above  Bishops, 
and  he  an  Italian  too,  Caraccioli,  after  resigning  his  See  of 
Troyes,  letting  his  own  triple  ordination  go  for  nothing ;  and  he 
(a  Bishop)  accepts  a  new  ordination  as  a  Protestant  pastor !  — 
about  the  most  ridiculous  ordination  on  record. 

The  books  at  my  command  do  not  enable  me  to  go  as 
minutely  into  the  state  of  things  in  Germany,  although  the  well- 
known  position  of  Hermann,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  is  an 
indication  that  Reformation  sympathies  were  not  unknown 
among  the  prelates  of  Germany,  any  more  than  among  those  of 
France. 

Why,  then,  if  they  had  Bishops  enough  to  continue  the  suc- 
cession, did  they  not  do  it?  Many  reasons,  doubtless,  con- 
tributed, which  we  cannot  consider  here.  One,  doubtless,  was 
that  in  neither  country  was  any  one  of  the  great  leaders  of  the 
Reformation  movement  a  Bishop ;  and  no  one  who  was  a  true 
popular  leader  in  so  hot  a  popular  movement  was  willing  to 
defer  to  the  authority  of  any  Bishop  less  competent  than  him- 
self to  lead  the  people.  Another  was  the  prevailing  impatience 
of  the  people  under  undeserved  and  cruel  persecution. 

II.  And  this  leads  me  to  the  Second  of  the  Three  Points  I  am 
to  touch  upon,  which  is  this:  In  England  the  Reforming  party, 
as  such,  never  drew  the  sword  to  defend  themselves  from  perse- 
cution. They  bore  the  persecution  patiently,  so  long  as  it 
pleased  GOD  that  it  should  last.  All  the  rebellions  that  were 
made  in  England  during  the  Reformation  period  proper  —  ex- 
cept the  personal  movement  for  Lady  Jane  Grey  — were  made 
by  the  opponents  of  Reform.  As  a  reward  for  this  patience 
and  endurance,  so  it  would  seem,  the  good  Providence  of  GOD 
accomplished  the  needed  Reform,  without  disturbing  a  single 


"  Three  Poniisr  347 

foundation  stone  of  the  old  Church.  15ut  in  France  and  in 
Germany  ami  in  Scotland  and  elsewhere,  impatience  and  perse- 
cution provoked  civil  war,  and  that  of  the  most  obstinate  and 
hurtful  kind.  This  caused  two  great  evils.  First,  the  religious 
question  was  tangled  up  and  lost  in  the  political  question  ;  and 
whenever  they  are  thus  tangled  up,  the  politics  of  this  world 
come  out  on  top,  and  religion  is  sacrificed.  The  history  of 
every  civil  war  about  religion  will  demonstrate  the  truth  of  this 
statement. 

The  other  great  evil  is,  that  the  going  to  war  kills  utterly  all 
the  spiritual  fruit  that  otherwise  would  have  been  borne  by  per- 
secution patiently  endured.  The  early  Church  went  through 
her  ten  persecutions  —  be  they  more  or  less  —  without  once, 
even  for  a  moment,  resorting  to  armed  defence  against  the  most 
outrageous  and  cruel  oppression.  And  this  patient  endurance 
—  by  the  blessing  of  GOD — conquered  the  mighty  Roman 
Empire.  So  in  England,  the  burning  of  nearly  two  hundred  of 
the  Reformed  party  during  the  reign  of  Philip  and  Mary, 
patiently  endured,  turned  the  heart  of  the  nation  so  strongly 
that  after  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  there  was  no  serious  obsta- 
cle to  all  the  Reformation  that  was  needed.  In  France,  the 
glorious  martyrdoms  so  bravely  endured  by  Leclerc,  Pauvan, 
De  Berquin,  Du  Bourg,  and  innumerable  others  in  the  earlier 
part  of  the  movement,  produced  a  wonderful  popular  effect, 
which  was  spreading  with  astonishing  rapidity.  We  read  that 
**  the  curiosity  to  hear  the  preaching  of  the  Word  of  GoD  by 
men  of  piety  and  learning,  the  desire  to  hear  those  grand 
psalms  of  Marot  solemnly  chanted  by  the  chorus  of  thousands 
of  human  voices,  had  infected  every  class  of  society.  The 
records  of  the  Chapters  of  Cathedrals,  during  this  period  of 
universal  spiritual  agitation,  are  little  else,  we  are  told,  than  a 
list  of  cases  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  instituted  against  chap- 
lains, canons,  and  even  higher  dignitaries,  for  having  attended 
the  Huguenot  services.  At  Rouen,  the  chief  singer  of  Notre 
Dame  acknowledged  before  the  united  Chapter  that  he  had 
often  been  present  at  the  *  assemblees,'  —  nay,  more,  *  that  he 
had  never  heard  anything  there  which  was  not  good.'  "  Even 
Catherine  de  Medici  herself,  partaking  of  the  general  zeal,  de- 
clared her  intention  to  hear  the  Bishop  of  Valence  preach 
before  the  young  King  and  the  Court,  in  the  saloon  of  the 
Castle.     In  that  same  year,  1561,  three  weeks  before  the  arrival 


348  The  Church  Review. 

of  Beza  to  take  part  in  the  Colloquy  of  Poissy,  this  same 
Catherine  de  Medici  wrote  a  remarkable  letter  to  the  Pope 
himself.  "After  acquainting  him  with  the  extraordinary  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  those  who  had  forsaken  the  Roman 
Church,  and  with  the  impossibility  of  restoring  unity  by  means 
of  coercion,  she  declared  it  a  special  mark  of  Divine  favor  that 
there  were  among  the  dissidents  neither  Anabaptists  nor  Liber- 
tines, for  all  held  the  Creed  as  explained  by  the  early  Councils 
of  the  Church.  It  was  consequently  the  conviction  of  many 
pious  persons  that  by  the  concession  of  some  points  of  practice 
the  present  divisions  might  be  healed.  But  more  frequent  and 
peaceful  conferences  must  be  held;  the  ministers  of  religion 
must  preach  concord  and  charity  to  their  flocks ;  and  the  scru- 
ples of  those  who  still  remain  in  the  pale  of  the  Church  must 
be  removed  by  the  abolition  of  all  unnecessary  and  objection- 
able practices.  Images,  forbidden  by  GoD  and  disapproved  of 
by  the  Fathers,  ought  at  once  to  be  banished  from  public 
worship,  baptism  to  be  stripped  of  its  exorcisms,  communion 
in  both  kinds  to  be  restored,  the  vernacular  tongue  to  be  em- 
ployed in  the  services  of  the  Church,  and  private  Masses  to  be 
discountenanced."  Surely  a  wonderful  letter  to  be  written  by 
such  a  person  as  Catherine  de  Medici,  and  to  such  a  person 
as  the  Pope !  From  it  we  may  easily  estimate  the  force  of  the 
current  by  which  she  was  surrounded.  Again  and  again  the 
Court  seemed  on  the  very  point  of  taking  sides  with  the  Refor- 
mation ;  but  every  time,  the  mixing  up  of  rebellion  vvith  Pro- 
testantism spoiled  the  prospect.  A  little  more  of  patient 
endurance  would  have  won  the  victory,  and  in  such  a  way  as 
to  retain  the  ancient  foundations  of  the  national  Church  un- 
disturbed. A  few  hundreds  might  have  been  added  to  the  roll 
of  martyrs  in  the  mean  time;  but  what  was  that  compared  to 
the  tens  of  thousands  that  perished  in  the  civil  wars  and  massa- 
cres? Baird  —  as  is  to  be  expected  —  defends  the  Huguenots 
in  their  taking  up  arms.  **  Candidly  viewing  their  circumstances 
at  the  distance  of  three  centuries,"  he  says,  *'  we  can  scarcely 
see  how  they  could  have  acted  otherwise  than  as  they  did." 
Yet  they  had  endured  persecution  for  only  about  one  genera- 
tion, while  the  early  Church  endured  it  for  nearly  three  hundred 
years.  Even  Baird,  however,  is  compelled  to  admit  that  what 
he  considers  justifiable  was  actually  destructive.  And  his 
language  is  so  complete  a  demonstration  of  the  truth,  and  so 


"  Three  Fointsy  349 

ovcrwhclmincj  a  condemnation    of  those  impatient  Huguenots 
whom  he  defends,  that  we   give   it  in   full:  — 

War  is  a  horrible  remedy  at  any  time.  Civil  war  superadds  a  thousand 
horrors  of  its  own.  And  a  civil  war  waged  in  the  name  of  religion  is  the 
most  frightful  of  all.  The  holiest  of  causes  is  sure  to  be  embraced  from 
impure  motives  by  a  host  of  unprincipled  men,  determined  in  their  choice 
of  party  only  by  the  hope  of  personal  gain,  the  lust  of  power,  or  the  thirst 
for  revenge,  — a  class  of  auxiliaries  too  powerful  and  important  to  be  al- 
together rejected  in  an  hour  when  the  issues  of  life  or  death  are  pending, 
even  if,  by  the  closest  and  calmest  scrutiny,  they  could  be  thoroughly 
weeded  out,  a  process  beyond  the  power  of  mortal  man  at  any  time, 
much  more  in  the  midst  of  the  tumult  and  confusion  of  war.  'Hie 
Huguenots  had  made  the  attempt  at  Orleans,  and  had  not  shrunk  from 
inflicting  the  severest  punishments,  even  to  death,  for  the  commission  of 
theft  and  other  heinous  crimes.  They  had  endeavored  in  their  camp  to 
realize  the  model  of  an  exemplary  Christian  community.  But  they  had 
failed,  because  there  were  with  them  those  who,  neither  in  peace  nor  in 
war,  could  bring  themselves  to  give  to  so  strict  a  moral  code  any  other 
obedience  than  tliat  which  fear  exacts.  Such  was  the  misery  of  war ; 
such  the  melancholy  alternative  to  which,  more  than  once,  the  Reformed 
saw  themselves  reduced,  of  perishing  by  persecution  or  of  saving  them- 
selves by  exposing  their  faith  to  reproach  through  alliance  with  men  of  as 
litUe  religion  or  morality  as  any  in  the  opposite  camp. 

And  Baird  goes  on  to  state  the  full  consequence  of  this  ter- 
rible blunder  of  his  friends,  which,  nevertheless,  he  attempts  to 
justify.     He  says,  — 

The  first  Civil  War  prevented  Frmtce  from  hecoming  a  Hugueiiot  coun- 
try. [He  forgets  that  he  had  just  said  that  they  were  in  danger  of 
"  perishing  by  persecution."  They  were  in  no  danger  of  the  sort.  They 
were  growing  by  persecution  faster  than  they  could  ever  grow  by  civil 
war.  Nay,  if  persecution  had  not  already  made  them  so  strong,  they 
would  not  have  thought  it  right  to  resort  to  civil  war  at  all.  But  as  to  the 
fact  that  the  outbreak  of  war  destroyed  the  possibility  of  a  reformation  of 
the  entire  kingdom  of  France,  he  adds  :]  This  was  the  deliberate  con- 
clusion of  a  Venetian  ambassador,  who  enjoyed  remarkable  opportunities 
for  observing  the  history  of  his  times.  The  practice  of  the  Christian  vir- 
tue of  patience  and  submission  under  suffering  and  insult,  had  made  the 
Reformers  an  incredible  number  of  friends.  The  waging  of  war,  even  in 
self-defence,  and  the  reported  acts  of  wanton  destruction,  of  cruelty  and 
sacrilege,  —  it  mattered  little  whether  they  were  true  or  false,  they  were 
equally  credited,  and  produced  the  same  results,  —  turned  the  indiffer- 
ence of  the  masses  into  positive  aversion.     It  availed  the  Huguenots 


350  The  Church  Review. 

little,  in  the  estimate  of  the  people,  that  the  crimes  that  were  almost  the 
rule  with  their  opponents  were  the  exception  with  them;  that  for  a 
dozen  such  as  Montluc,  they  were  cursed  with  but  one  Baron  des  Adrets ; 
that  the  barbarities  of  the  former  received  the  approbation  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Priesthood,  while  those  of  the  latter  were  censured  with  vehe- 
mence by  the  Protestant  ministers.  Partisan  spirit  refused  to  hold  the 
scales  of  justice  with  equal  hand,  and  could  see  no  proofs  of  superior 
morality  or  devotion  in  the  adherents  of  the  Reformed  faith. 

The  same  evil  consequences,  only  to  a  far  greater  extent,  fol- 
lowed the  terrible  Thirty  Years'  War  in  Germany,  —  probably 
the  most  horrible  civil  war  that  has  ever  cursed  any  Christian 
country.  And  the  same  cause  produced  the  same  effects.  It 
was  not  because  the  Reformed  had  no  sympathizers  among  the 
Bishops,  but  because  they  were  too  impatient  of  persecution  to 
be  willing  to  wait  until  the  Lord's  work  should  be  done  in  the 
Lord's  way.  And  the  same  impatience  —  not  necessity,  by 
any  means  —  led  them  to  throw  overboard  the  ancient  au- 
thority of  Bishops  in  the  Church  of  GOD  and  originate  a  new 
ministry  of  their  own. 

Now  we  have  seen,  in  our  own  day,  though  after  a  much 
milder  fashion,  the  operation  of  the  same  general  principles. 
The  great  Catholic  Revival  of  the  past  half-century  is  one  of 
the  most  wonderful  that  the  Church  has  seen  in  any  age  or 
in  any  land.  One  great  object  of  it  was  to  revive  the  true 
doctrine  that  Bishops  are  in  the  Church  by  Divine  right,  and 
that  the  powers  given  to  them  by  Christ  and  the  HOLY  GHOST 
cannot  be  taken  away  by  any  merely  human  authority.  Yet 
at  the  beginning  the  entire  Anglican  Episcopate  —  with  much 
fewer  exceptions  than  we  have  found  in  France  —  was  opposed 
to  the  Revival.  Many  were  discouraged  by  this,  lost  heart, 
and  left  us.  But  a  little  reflection  ought  to  have  satisfied  them. 
The  primary  instinct  of  the  Episcopal  Order  is,  and  rightly,  to 
hand  things  down  to  their  successors  exactly  as  they  themselves 
received  them.  When,  therefore,  after  the  lapse  of  ages,  the 
Church  has  gradually  accumulated  errors  in  certain  directions, 
and  the  spirit  of  Reform  is  sent  forth  by  the  HOLY  Ghost,  that 
Reform  must  ahvays  expect  to  find  the  Episcopate,  as  a  body, 
opposed  to  it.  The  Bishops,  as  a  body,  are  rather  more  elderly 
men  than  the  average  of  the  rest  of  the  clergy.  They  represent 
the  age  that  is  just  ending,  rather  than  that  which  is  just  begin-- 
ning.     And  with  their  primary  instinct  of  keeping  things  un- 


"  Three  Poinds!'  351 

changed,  they  oppose  every  improvement  as  an  innovation. 
This  feeling  of  the  Bishops  was  ahiiost  unbroken  for  a  quarter 
of  a  century  after  our  Cathohc  Revival  began  ;  and  even  now, 
when  it  is  more  than  half  a  century  old,  a  faithful  and  devoted 
Priest  in  Liverpool,  the  Rev.  J.  Bell-Cox,  has  lately  been  sent  to 
prison  by  a  Bishop  —  a  Low  Church  Bishop,  his  ozvn  Bishop  — 
for  his  fidelity  to  that  great  Revival;  he  being  the  fifih  Priest 
who  has  cheerfully  gone  to  jail  in  the  same  great  cause.  In  all 
these  fifty  years  and  more,  all  the  persecution  that  could  be 
brought  to  bear  on  the  Catholic  Reformers  has  been  cheerfully 
borne,  with  no  attempt  to  retaliate,  or  secede,  or  form  a  sect,  or 
usurp  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Bishops.  Yet  all  the  while, 
preaching  and  teaching  and  writing  and  ritual  and  organiza- 
tions for  work  among  the  poor,  and  the  revival  of  the  Religious 
Orders,  and  much  more,  have  gone  on  with  unflinching  energy 
and  courage,  until  at  length  we  have  fairly  conquered  the  de- 
cided majority  of  the  Anglican  Episcopate  itself.  And  that 
Episcopate  is  now  about  as  unanimous  in  commending  the  great 
Catholic  Revival  as  they  were  forty  years  ago  in  condemning  it. 
When  one  has  mastered  the  theory  that  the  Bishops  will  cer- 
tainly, for  at  least  a  generation  or  two,  oppose  any  and  every 
attempt  at  Reformation,  from  within  and  from  below,  he  will  be 
less  likely  to  lose  heart  and  courage  when  he  finds  that  the 
theory  is  borne  out  by  the  facts.  And  it  is  well  that  it  is  so. 
If  changes  could  be  brought  about  too  easily,  we  should  lose  all 
stability,  —  there  would  be  nothing  but  change ;  whereas  now, 
when  a  change  for  the  better  has  been  slowly  and  painfully  ac- 
complished, it  is  a  satisfaction  to  know  that  it  will  last.  More- 
over, when  a  movement  is  really  begun  by  GoD  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  is  carried  on  with  equal  courage  and  patience,  there 
is  no  danger  that  any  opposition  by  the  Bishops  of  the  day  will 
ever  be  able  to  put  it  down,  no  matter  how  hard  they  may  try. 
In  a  generation  or  two,  the  Reform  will  be  represented  and 
maintained  by  the  Bishops  themselves.  Let  patience  therefore 
have  her  perfect  work.  With  heavenly  patience,  the  new  life  is 
like  leaven,  that  spreads  its  influence  from  soul  to  soul  until  the 
whole  Church  is  leavened.  With  zwpatience  and  Civil  War, 
that  new  life  becomes  rather  like  the  destructive  forces  of 
Nature,  by  which  the  solid  mountain  is  rent  into  two  op- 
posing cliffs,  which  frown  defiance  on  each  other  forever,  and 
unite  no  more. 


352  The  Church  Review. 

III.  I  have  left  myself  but  little  time  for  the  TJiird  Point, 
which  is  not  so  closely  connected  with  the  other  two,  but  which, 
I  hope,  may  be  helpful  to  some  minds. 

When  a  metal  bar  freely  suspended  is  rubbed  so  as  to  develop 
positive  electricity  at  one  end,  it  is  always  found  that  the  same 
action  has  at  the  same  time  spontaneously  developed  an  equal 
amount  of  negative  electricity  at  the  other  end.  The  amount 
of  electricity  produced  may  thus  be  tested,  with  equal  correct- 
ness, from  the  negative  end  as  well  as  from  the  positive. 

Now  this  third  point  is  simply  to  compare  the  great  Com- 
munions of  Christendom  by  their  failures.  We  are  all  familiar 
with  the  positive  comparisons,  —  so  familiar  that  sometimes  the 
very  familiarity  makes  us  suspect  that  there  must  be  some  un- 
discovered fallacy  about  them.  Let  us,  then,  try  the  negative, 
for  once. 

But  you  may  say,  What  do  you  mean  by  the  negative?  I 
will  explain.  Let  us  look  at  the  three  great  Communions  of 
Christendom,  — the  Roman,  the  Oriental,  and  the  Anglican.  So 
long  as  we  are  divided,  no  one  of  us  has  any  authority  from 
God  to  claim  that  we  are  entirely  right  in  all  points  of  differ- 
ence, and  that  the  others  are  entirely  wrong.  We  must  be,  all 
of  us,  right  in  some  things  and  wrong  in  other  things.  And  in 
so  far  as  we  are  wrong,  we  shall  have  owx  failures,  as  well  as  our 
successes.  Now  I  propose  to  compare  our  failures.  And  —  as 
we  ought  to  do  —  let  us  begin  with  ourselves  first. 

Our  failures,  then,  may  briefly  be  described  as  the  English- 
speaking  Protestant  denominations,  so  far  as  they  have  sprung 
out  of  the  English  Church.  As  for  those  which  have^  sprung 
directly  from  the  various  Reformed  bodies  on  the  Continent  of 
Europe,  of  course  the  Church  of  England  is  not  responsible  for 
them.  All  these  denominations  are  without  the  Historic  Epis- 
copate ;  and  this  points  to  a  great  fault  in  the  English  Church, 
largely  owing  —  as  are  most  of  her  faults  —  to  her  union  with 
the  State.  At  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  Cranmer  earnestly 
desired  to  increase  the  number  of  Episcopal  Sees  in  England 
from  twenty-three  to  forty  ;  and  King  Henry  VUL  gave  him 
reason  to  hope  that  it  should  be  done  with  endowments  from 
the  Church  property  taken  by  the  Crown.  But  instead  of  that, 
only  six  new  Sees  were  erected,  —  one  of  which  soon  ceased  to 
exist ;  and  there  the  increase  stuck  for  three  hundred  years.  If 
that  proposed  enlargement  had  then  been  made,  it  is  highly 


"  Three  Point s!'  353 

probable  that  dissent  from  the  Cluirch  of  En^rjand  would  never 
have  amounted  to  much.  JUit  when  —  with  the  steadily  grow- 
ing population  —  there  was  )io  growth  in  the  Episcopate  ;  when 
the  time  and  attention  of  Bishops  were  absorbed  to  a  large  de- 
gree by  their  duties  in  Parliament;  when  their  spiritual  duties 
were  more  and  more  neglected,  visitations  being  made  only  once 
in  from  three  to  seven  years,  and  in  some  cases  not  at  all ;  when 
the  children  from  three,  four,  or  five  parishes  were  gotten  to- 
gether for  Confirmation  in  one  large  Church,  and  the  Bishop 
never  visited  the  others  at  all,  —  what  could  be  expected  but 
that  a  type  of  earnest  piety  should  largely  prevail  from  which 
Bishops  were  entirely  left  out? 

Then,  again,  in  her  Catechism,  the  Church  of  England  has 
taught  nothing  about  Confirmation  or  Holy  Orders,  or  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Catholic  Church,  not  one  word  !  What  won- 
der, then,  that  some  of  her  people  should  easily  come  to  think  that 
Confirmation  is  of  no  great  use,  and  that  one  kind  of  minister  of 
the  Gospel  is  just  about  as  good  as  another,  and  that  any  and 
every  sect  is  a  Church?  Other  faults  might  be  mentioned  also, 
especially  the  suspension  of  the  synodical  action  of  the  Church 
for  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.  But  no  matter  how 
great  the  evils  of  these  divisions  and  losses,  with  all  their  con- 
troversies and  jealousies,  thus  much  must  be  allowed :  On  the 
whole,  and  with  few  exceptions,  these  denominations  all  accept 
the  Bible,  and  use  it  in  the  version  given  them  by  the  Church  ; 
they  all  profess  to  accept  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creeds  ; 
they  all  claim  to  keep  up  the  ministration  of  the  two  great 
Sacraments;  their  Baptism  is  almost  universally  a  valid  Bap- 
tism ;  they  are  earnest  and  zealous  in  a  great  variety  of  good 
works,  and  not  unfrequently,  in  liberality  and  zeal,  they  set  tis 
an  example  which  we  should  do  well  to  follow.  They  are,  on 
the  whole,  a  very  respectable  set  of  failures.  And  the  separation 
from  us  is  not  so  wide  or  so  deep  as  in  any  of  the  other  cases 
we  shall  mention ;  while  the  general  confession  of  the  evil  of 
the  disunion  is  more  outspoken  and  sincere,  and  the  prospect 
of  final  reunion  far  more  promising,  than  we  shall  find  anywhere 
else  in  Christendom. 

Let  us  next  look  at  the  Oriental  Church.  Her  great  failure  is 
Mohammedanism,  —  a  far  worse  and  more  destructive  failure 
than  ours ;  for  Mohammedanism  is  rather  a  heresy  arising  out 
of  Christianity,  than  an  original  and  separate  religion.     It  in- 

23 


-^-^  The  Church  Review. 

eludes  a  recognition  of  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New, — 
of  Abraham  and  Moses  and  Christ.  The  faults  that  provoked 
this  terrible  reaction  were  rather  the  faults  of  the  decaying 
and  slavish  absolutism  of  the  old  Pagan  Roman  Empire,  which 
Christianity  could  not  save ;  together  with  the  picture-worship 
and  saint-worship  which  grew  naturally  out  of  the  other,  ag- 
gravated by  the  irrepressible  dialectics  of  the  Greek  mind  in 
defining  and  over-defining  the  nature  and  relations  of  the  Per- 
sons of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  Mohammed  threw  off  Christian 
Baptism,  and  retained  the  old  circumcision.  He  made  one 
clean  sweep  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.  He  made  GOD 
to  be  a  simple  unit,  and  himself  to  be  God's  greatest  and  final 
Prophet,  and  the  sword  to  be  the  chief  propagator  of  his  religion. 
The  later  organization  of  the  Janissaries  is  a  horrible  travesty 
worthy  of  the  Devil  himself.  The  Turks  levied  a  tribute  on 
the  Christians  oi  children,  —  baptized  Christian  children,  —  who 
were  violently  taken  from  their  parents  before  they  were  old 
enough  to  understand  the  truths  of  Christianity,  and  were  then 
carefully  trained  up  as  Moslems,  and  were  sworn  to  fight  —  as 
their  life-work  —  that  very  religion  into  which  they  had  been 
baptized  in  infancy.  No  wonder  that  such  a  weapon  became 
ultimately  intolerable  even  to  the  sultan  who  wielded  it !  There 
can  be  no  question  that  Mohammedanism  —  the  great  failure  of 
the  Oriental  Church  —  is  incomparably  worse  than  ours. 

But  the  Church  of  Rome  affords  a  failure  far  beyond  either 
of  us.  As  she  has  carried  her  practical  corruptions,  her  addi- 
tions to  the  Faith,  and  her  passion  for  absolutism  both  in  Church 
and  State,  to  such  tremendous  lengths,  so  in  the  intensity  of 
atheistic  continental  communism  she  has  developed  a  failure  in- 
comparably worse  than  even  Mohammedanism,  and  beside  which 
our  Evangelical  Protestant  denominations  appear  like  positive 
blessings !  The  horrors  of  the  first  French  Revolution  were 
bad  enough.  The  Commune  of  Paris  has  shown  that  it  would 
improve  on  the  old  horrors,  with  greater  ones  of  modern  in- 
vention, the  moment  it  should  have  a  chance.  The  intense 
hatred  of  everything  like  Christianity,  or  even  of  a  belief  in  a 
God,  is  startling.  Only  think  what  the  condition  of  a  man's 
mind  must  be  who  deliberately  shoots  dead  a  Priest  who  was 
standing  at  the  altar  and  reciting  the  Apostles'  Creed,  —  his 
only  motive  being  hatred  of  the  Creed  which  the  Priest  was 
reciting !     Roman  repression  has  been  manufacturing  the  con- 


"  Three  Points r  355 

centratcd  oil  of  vitriol,  which  threatens  to  destroy  everything 
that  it  can  get  a  chance  to  touch. 

The  comparison  of  our  failures,  then,  while  it  ought  to  teach 
an  Anglican  modesty,  and  a  deep  sense  of  our  own  shortcomings, 
has  in  it  also  an  element  of  comfort  and  encouragement.  We 
have  not  been  so  long  on  the  wrong  course,  and  have  not  driven 
our  errors  so  deep,  and  have  not  brought  forth  such  desperate 
results  as  the  others ;  and  therefore  as  to  what  we  still  have  to 
do,  we  may  well  '*  thank  GoD,  and  take  courage." 

John  Henry  Hopkins. 


THE  One  Holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Church  is  composed, 
after  all,  of  human  particles ;  and  it  has  always  borne  the 
marks  of  human  weakness.  It  was  never  free  from  contentions. 
Even  in  our  Lord's  time,  and  almost  in  His  bodily  presence, 
His  disciples  disputed  as  to  which  was  the  greatest ;  they  under- 
took to  forbid  one  to  cast  out  devils  in  our  Lord's  name,  be- 
cause he  did  not  follow  with  them ;  and  they  were  moved  with 
indignation  when  the  mother  of  James  and  John  asked  for  her 
sons  the  highest  rank  in  Christ's  kingdom.  Paul  contended 
against  Peter  and  Barnabas  because  of  their  dissimulation ;  and 
while  the  Apostles  yet  lived  there  were  divisions  between  Chris- 
tians who  claimed  Paul,  Peter,  or  Apollos  as  their  leader.  But 
the  Church  was  not  divided  by  any  of  these  quarrels.  For  a 
thousand  years,  although  contests  abounded  concerning  certain 
refinements  of  doctrine,  the  relative  rank  of  sees,  and  on  other 
points,  yet  there  existed  a  degree  of  unity  to  which  in  our  day 
we  can  only  aspire. 

There  never  was  a  time  known  to  the  organized  Christian 
Church  when  a  difference  in  dignity  was  not  conceded  as  be- 
tween certain  sees.  In  the  earlier  times,  Rome  being  the  polit- 
ical capital  of  the  world,  it  was  natural  that  all  other  bishops 
should  yield  a  precedence  of  honor  to  the  bishop  of  the  world's 
metropolis ;  and  when  Constantinople,  or  New  Rome,  as  it  was 
called,  became  the  metropolis  of  the  world,  it  was  natural  that 
its  bishop  should  expect  the  like  pre-eminence ;  even  as  when 
it  was  the  second  capital,  it  had  been  granted  the  second  eccle- 
siastical rank,  superseding  the  See  of  Alexandria,  which  Saint 
Mark  had  founded.  The  Fourth  CEcumenical  Council  did,  in 
fact,  declare  Old  Rome  and  New  Rome  to  be  equal.  Canon 
XXVIII.  of  Chalcedon  runs  thus:  "The  Fathers  fitly  bestowed 
precedence  upon  the  throne  of  Old  Rome  because  it  was  the 
Imperial  City;  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  bishops  beloved  of 
God  [that  is,  the  Fathers  of  the  Second  General  Council  of 
Constantinople],  moved  by  the  same  consideration,  rightly  be- 


The  Church  Review.  357 

stowed  equal  precedence  upon  the  most  holy  throne  of  New 
Rome,  wisely  judging  that  the  city  honored  by  the  seat  of  em- 
pire and  by  the  Senate,  and  enjoying  the  same  [secular]  pre- 
cedence as  Old  Imperial  Rome,  should  be  aggrandized  like  it  in 
ecclesiastical  matters  also,  ranking  next  after  it."  Precedence, 
it  will  be  observed,  was  based  solely  on  the  political  importance 
of  the  two  sees,  not  on  the  supremacy  of  Saint  Peter,  for  Con- 
stantinople claimed  no  Apostolic  foundation. 

So  long  as  the  civilized  world  was  a  unit  politically,  it  was 
proper  and  natural  that  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  should  also 
be  an  organized  unit.  When  the  Empire  of  the  East  became 
a  State  separate  from  that  of  the  West,  it  was  as  proper  and 
natural  that  the  Church  in  each  empire  should  have  its  own 
ecclesiastical  head ;  and  so,  as  nation  after  nation  arose  to  in- 
dependence carved  out  of  the  old  empire,  it  would  have  been 
better  and  more  consistent  if  the  Church  in  each  had  also  be- 
come self-ruled. 

Happily,  the  world-wide  empire  and  the  world-wide  Church 
existed  together  long  enough  to  establish  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  to  combat  every  form  of  heresy,  and 
finally  to  embody  in  the  Nicene  Creed  such  points  as  were  to 
be  held  as  of  Faith,  and  to  agree  that  whoever  added  to  or  de- 
ducted from  that  creed  should  be  anathema.  The  Pope  and 
Church  of  Rome  assented  to  that  creed,  and  joined  in  the  decla- 
ration of  malediction ;  and  if  popes  are  really  infallible,  they  are 
now  excommunicate  under  this  declaration. 

So  long  as  the  true  Nicene  Creed  was  accepted  as  the  uni- 
versal symbol  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  so  long  as  the  canons 
of  the  Universal  Church  were  acknowledged  as  the  common 
law  of  all  Christendom,  the  separation  of  the  Church  into  east- 
ern and  western  branches,  with  the  like  division  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  or  its  yet  farther  division  into  national  churches,  as 
nations  arose  from  the  ruins  of  both  empires,  could  not  have 
militated  against  the  Divine  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Neither  political  frontiers,  nor  distance,  nor  even  war,  could 
have  destroyed  the  unity  of  one  LORD,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism. 
Throughout  Christendom  a  bishop,  or  a  priest,  or  a  deacon 
would  have  been  acknowledged  as  such,  and  laymen  every- 
where would  rightfully  have  claimed  their  Christian  privileges, 
even  among  those  whose  tongue  was  strange,  whose  land  was 
foreign,  or  whose  political  governors  were  at  war. 


358  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

If  churches  of  different  nations  had  sent  missionaries  to  the 
same  heathen  land,  there  need  not  have  been  any  mutual  ques- 
tioning of  authority,  or  any  demoralizing  competition  in  the 
presence  of  converts ;  but  whether  Moscow  planted  or  Rome 
watered,  GOD  would  have  given  the  increase  to  His  One  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  and  we  never  should  have  seen  the  strange 
spectacle  of  holy  treasure  wasted  in  sending  Christians  to  con- 
vert Christians. 

This  is  the  unity  and  the  only  unity  which  we  of  the  American 
Church  expect  or  desire.  What  shall  be  the  ceremonial  ob- 
servances will  be  a  matter  of  little  consequence  when  such 
essentials  as  the  Universal  Church,  in  its  unquestioned  General 
Council,  has  decreed,  are  loyally  accepted.  Such  unity  existed 
in  the  Church  throughout  the  first  half  of  its  history.  It  was  not 
an  ideal  unity  with  absolute  prevalence  of  harmony.  Through- 
out Christendom  there  were  many,  some  very  bitter,  conten- 
tions. Men  are  but  fallible  beings;  and  for  some  inscrutable 
reason  controversies  about  religion,  even  among  religious  per- 
sons, seem  to  be  attended  with  a  degree  of  acrimony  more 
intense  than  is  common  in  merely  secular  discussions. 

In  the  ninth  century  the  words,  ''And  the  Son"  {filioque), 
were  in  some  countries  inserted  in  the  Nicene  Creed  where  the 
CEcumenical  Council  had  not  inserted  them ;  and  this  intrusion 
was  finally  authorized  throughout  the  Patriarchate  of  Old  Rome 
by  Pope  Nicholas  I.,  although  his  predecessors,  in  spite  of 
much  importunity,  had  invariably  refused  to  permit  it,  —  one 
of  them,  the  holy  Leo  III.,  having  ordered  the  filioqtie  to  be 
omitted  where  the  custom  of  using  it  had  obtained,  distinctly 
on  the  ground  that  no  alteration  could  be  made  in  the  Church's 
creed  by  any  less  authority  than  that  which  had  originally  pro- 
claimed the  creed.  To  this  violation  of  the  common  law  of  the 
Church  we  must  attribute  the  final  schism  by  which,  in  the  year 
1054,  the  Roman  Church  and  its  dependencies  were  cut  off  from 
the  unity  of  the  original  Catholic  Church. 

After  the  separation,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  who  for 
more  than  six  hundred  years  had  been  the  declared  equ'al  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  remained  the  chief  dignitary  of  the  Ortho- 
dox. Between  the  two  patriarchates  there  have  always  existed 
these  fundamental  differences  in  character:  (i)  That  whereas 
Rome  has  always  striven  to  dominate  the  State,  it  has  been 
usual  in  the  East  for  the  Church  to  defer  to  the  State  in  matters 


The  C/nirch  Review,  359 

not  invoh'in^  doctrine ;  (2)  That  while  in  tlic  West  Rome  has 
always  endeavored  to  centraHze  power  in  itself,  breaking  down 
all  barriers  to  make  the  Church  not  national  but  Roman,  the 
East  has  always  recognized  the  right  of  a  nation  to  hold  within 
itself  an  autonomous  Church,  and  the  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople has  been  content  with  his  supremacy  of  honor  merely. 

In  studying  the  history  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Rome,  we  arc 
for  the  greater  part  of  the  time  among  scenes  which  our  education 
has  made  familiar,  and  we  need  only  to  acquire  such  languages 
as  are  taught  in  the  seminaries  about  us.  But  the  story  of  the 
Eastern  Church  leads  us  far  afield  to  remote  and  unfamiliar,  if 
not  unknown,  regions  of  the  earth ;  and  its  literature  is  largely 
comprised  in  languages  which  are  hardly  spoken  or  taught  in 
this  hemisphere,  —  for  of  the  one  hundred  millions  of  people 
who  are  comprised  in  the  Eastern  churches,  eighty  millions 
pray  in  the  Sclavonic  tongues,  the  greater  part  of  them  in 
tongues  of  that  family  now  almost  obsolete  except  for  eccle- 
siastical purposes;  and  the  number  of  American  citizens  who 
can  read  Hebrew  far  exceeds  those  by  w^hom  the  Sclavonic 
types  can  be  read  and  comprehended. 

Again,  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  sketch  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  by  following  down  the  list  of  popes  and  noting 
the  prominent  incidents  of  each  reign ;  but  in  the  East  there  is 
no  such  thread  of  connection,  and  it  is  necessary  to  tell,  not  one 
story,  but  many  stories.  It  would  occupy  too  much  space,  and 
perhaps  outwear  the  patience  of  the  reader,  even  to  sketch  in 
outline  the  annals  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  with 
what  may  be  considered  its  dependencies  of  Alexandria,  An- 
tioch,  and  Jerusalem,  of  the  Church  in  Russia  and  Greece  and 
Cyprus  and  Montenegro,  and  of  the  Orthodox  in  Austro-Hun- 
gary;  and  even  then  there  would  remain  undescribed  the  more 
or  less  unorthodox  offshoots,  —  the  Abyssinians,  the  Armeni- 
ans, the  Jacobites,  and  the  Nestorians,  as  well  as  the  curious 
forms  of  dissent  in  the  Russian  empire. 

It  would  be  an  instructive  but  a  sad  narrative,  touching  upon 
the  heresies  and  schisms  which  have  warred  within,  and  the  fluc- 
tuating contests  betw^een  the  Crescent  and  the  Cross ;  but  noth- 
ing less  than  a  volume  would  suffice  to  state  even  briefly  the 
events  which  have  marked  the  long  centuries  of  the  life  of  the 
various  bodies  which  together  compose  the  Holy  Eastern  Church. 


360  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

The  East  is  almost  a  different  world  from  the  West.  Men's 
thoughts  run  in  different  channels ;  and  whereas  intense  activity 
is  characteristic  of  the  West,  passivity  is  the  tendency  in  the 
East.  The  West  delights  in  looking  hopefully  forward;  the  East 
revels  in  the  past.  From  time  to  time  Rome  invents  and  im- 
poses a  new  religious  belief,  claiming  to  have  in  itself  the  right 
to  develop  doctrine.  The  orthodox  East  abides  by  the  ancient 
creed  and  reverences  antiquity.  Rome  dates  itself  from  S. 
Peter;  but  Constantinople  regards  the  advent  of  Christ  as 
occurring  in  the  middle  of  Church  history.  Rome's  saints  are 
those  only  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  while  the  Byzantine 
calendar  includes  among  the  saints  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament,  with  Moses,  Isaac,  and  Job  the  Just.  Rome  seeks 
always  to  acquire  and  extend  power  over  secular  rulers  and 
affairs ;  but  the  patriarchs  of  the  East  claim  no  temporal  power, 
and  when  they  have  mingled  in  secular  politics  have  usually 
been  stimulated  by  motives  of  patriotism,  or  have  acted  in  de- 
fence of  the  Church. 

But  that  is  a  very  mistaken  idea  which  counts  the  Eastern 
churches  as  having  been  indifferent  to  missionary  duty  and 
content  to  abide  in  their  Dioceses.  It  is  true  that  they  never 
have  pretended  to  own  the  earth  and  to  parcel  out  heathen 
land  among  Christian  princes ;  and  it  has  not  been  their  custom 
to  compel  submission  to  Christianity  at  the  point  of  the  sword, 
nor  even  to  retaliate  upon  the  Saracens  such  treatment  as 
Christians  had  experienced  at  their  hands.  They  have  built  on 
no  man's  foundation,  nor  have  they  attempted  to  lord  it  over 
God's  heritage  by  sending  missionaries  to  induce  other  Chris- 
tians to  submit  to  their  rule,  but  have  merely  defended  their 
own  flocks  against  the  intrusion  of  Papists  and  Protestants, 
whom  they  equally  abhor. 

And  yet  these  Churches  of  the  Eastern  rite  can  give  a  good 
account  of  their  stewardship.  The  habitable  earth  has  been 
almost  girdled  by  their  missions.  Passing  westward  into  and 
through  Germany  and  France,  they  seem  to  have  been  the 
first  to  establish  the  Episcopate  in  Germany,  Gaul,  and  Britain, 
where  traces  still  remain  of  the  original  Oriental  influence. 
From  Alexandria  southward  they  carried  the  good  news  to 
Ethiopia,  Abyssinia,  and  through  regions  even  now  unknown, 
south  of  the  equator  to  the  shores  of  the  Indian  Ocean.  East- 
ward by  sea  along  the  coast  they  spread  the  Gospel  as  far  as 


The  Church  Review.  361 

to  Ceylon,  and  on  the  coast  of  Malabar  the  Christians  of  S. 
Thomas  still  celebrate  their  maimed  rites  in  a  Syrian  tongue. 
Eastward  by  land  throui^h  Persia  and  India  they  pressed  on  to 
a  meetin;^  with  the  sea-coast  missions  in  Ik^ngal ;  and  more  yet  to 
the  north  through  Thibet  and  Mongolia,  overcoming  all  obsta- 
cles, they  penetrated  into  China,  where  the  inscription  of  Sc- 
ngan-fu  attests  their  victorious  presence  and  relates  their  annals 
for  a  century  and  a  half,  and  where  their  churches  are  known 
to  have  existed  for  more  than  seven  centuries.  Northward  the 
Orthodox  Church  moved  to  its  greatest  conquest;  there  it  cre- 
ated the  Empire  of  the  Tsars,  more  extensive  than  that  of 
ancient  Rome,  out  of  tribes  known  to  old  Romans  only  by 
half  mythical  stories ;  and  by  the  waters  of  the  Arctic  Ocean 
they  planted  the  monastery  of  Michael  the  Archangel.  Skirt- 
ing the  frozen  zone,  they  taught  the  Christian  faith  and  estab- 
lished Apostolic  vicars  in  the  chief  places ;  and  their  Bishop  of 
Irkutsk  in  Siberia  supplied  priests  to  a  Christian  colony  in 
Pekin  whose  descendants  exist  there  to  this  day.  Crossing  the 
Behring  Sea,  they  founded  the  bishopric  of  Sitka  in  Alaska, 
working  wonders  among  the  savage  tribes  and  making  converts 
even  to  within  forty  ijiiles  of  the  site  of  San  Francisco,  where 
the  last  Bishop  of  Sitka  found  his  winter  rest  in  the  see  city  of 
our  Bishop  of  California, — thus  meeting  on  the  coast  of  North 
America  a  successor  of  those  bishops  whom  the  same  church 
had  consecrated  for  Great  Britain  fifteen  hundred  years  before. 
Even  within  the  last  twenty-five  years  the  Orthodox  have  estab- 
lished a  mission  in  Japan. 

Much  of  this  was  accomplished  by  the  Church  while  con- 
fronted and  in  places  almost  overwhelmed  by  the  Moslem 
power.  The  origin  of  Mahometanism  was  in  the  tribes  of 
Arabia  in  the  centre  of  the  Eastern  churches.  The  forces  of 
Islam  at  one  time  almost  surrounded  the  waters  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean. They  reduced  Spain  to  the  condition  of  a  Mahome- 
tan province,  abiding  within  it  for  eight  centuries,  and  they 
penetrated  to  the  centre  of  France  within  two  hundred  miles  of 
Paris.  It  was  not  until  six  centuries  after  their  conquest  of 
Spain  that  Constantinople  fell  into  the  hands  of  their  generals ; 
and  the  Turk  will  hardly  have  kept  a  footing  in  Turkey  for  one 
half  the  centuries  that  the  Moor  held  Spain.  But  the  struggle 
has  been  intense,  and  is  not  yet  ended. 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  Turks  to  kill  or  enslave  all  whom 


3'- 


62  T/ie  Holy  Eastern  Chtirch, 


they  could  not  convert;  and  it  is  indeed  a  matter  for  wonder 
that  under  such  tyranny  the  Eastern  churches  have  been  able 
to  maintain  even  existence  in  their  ancient  territory.  The  Latin 
Church  was  practically  exterminated  in  all  that  region  on  the 
southern  border  of  the  Mediterranean  where  once  S.  Augus- 
tine of  Hippo  and  his  contemporaries  lived  and  ruled ;  and  the 
names  of  ancient  sees  of  the  Roman  Church  in  Africa  survived 
merely  as  titles  for  ecclesiastics  who  never  saw  that  continent; 
but  the  succession  of  patriarchs  and  metropolitans  in  Jerusa- 
lem, Antioch,  Alexandria,  Constantinople,  at  the  foot  of  Ararat, 
and  even  in  poor  ignorant  and  isolated  Abyssinia,  has  been 
maintained  by  bishops  of  whom  many  have  been  confessors  and 
martyrs  for  the  Faith. 

It  was  in  the  centuries  of  her  greatest  troubles,  that  the  Or- 
thodox Church  effected  the  conquest  of  Muscovy.  There  too 
she  was  met  by  the  followers  of  Mahomet;  and  as  the  tide 
ebbed  and  flowed,  the  Tartars  would  remove  the  Cross  and 
place  the  Crescent  above  the  captured  churches.  When  these 
were  recaptured,  the  Crescent  was  permitted  to  remain,  but  was 
surmounted  by  the  Cross.  Millions  of  Moslems,  subjects  of 
Russia,  have  been  converted  to  Christianity;  can  Rome  count 
its  thousands?  If  the  Turk  yet  keeps  a  foothold  in  Europe,  it 
is  only  because  the  nations  of  Western  Europe  have  tied  the 
hands  of  the  great  Orthodox  Empire  whose  people  would  wil- 
lingly and  long  ago  have  driven  him  back  to  his  native  deserts, 
and  relieved  the  provinces  of  the  Levant  from  his  obstructive 
reign.  Within  her  own  territory  Russia  has  subdued  the  Turks ; 
and  beyond  her  borders  of  late,  in  Servia,  Roumania,  and  Bul- 
garia, she  has  restored  the  Christian's  rule. 

The  Holy  Eastern  Church  has  needed  no  unity  of  imperial 
autocracy  to  enable  her  children  to  preach  the  Gospel  from 
the  Arctic  to  the  Indian  Ocean,  and  from  the  waters  of  the  At- 
lantic to  the  great  Pacific  Sea.  By  the  tyranny  of  Moslem  domi- 
nation she  has  been  fearfully  disabled  ;  and  in  many  countries,  for 
want  of  wealth  and  liberty,  she  has  been  unable  to  maintain 
seminaries  of  learning  in  theology,  science,  and  the  arts.  Her 
people,  oppressed,  poor,  ignorant,  and  consequently  supersti- 
tious, have  been  troubled  sometimes  by  heresies  and  always  by 
Roman  intrigues ;  but  she  never  has  been  wanting  in  that  seed 
of  the  Church,  the  blood  of  holy  martyrs,  by  which  perhaps  her 
life  has  been  maintained. 


The  Church  Review.  363 

Within  this  nineteenth  century  an  archbishop  of  Cyprus,  his 
three  suffragan  bishops,  and  all  the  hegumcns  of  the  Cyprus 
monasteries  were  \\w\y^  upon  one  tree;  and  so  late  as  1821, 
Gregory,  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  was  hung  at  the  door 
of  his  cathedral. 

In  1590  Poland  was  a  State  more  powerful  than  Russia,  and 
her  people  were  divided  in  ecclesiastical  allegiance  between 
Rome  and  Constantinople.  Roman  intrigues  and  political  in- 
fluences led  to  the  organization  of  the  Uniat  Church,  which, 
consenting  to  acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  was 
allowed  to  retain  the  rites,  the  customs,  and  the  creed  of  the 
East.  The  concordat  was  basely  violated,  and  the  people 
shamefully  abused,  under  the  papal  authority,'so  that  at  the  first 
partition  of  Poland,  of  the  Uniats  who  came  under  Russian  pro- 
tection, more  than  two  millions  in  number  voluntarily  returned 
to  their  allegiance  to  the  Eastern  Church,  and  in  1839,  the  re- 
mainder of  them,  at  least  two  millions  more,  on  their  own  appli- 
cation, were  received  back  with  their  bishops  and  clergy. 

A  List  ofalltJie  Sees  and  Bishops  of  the  Holy  Orthodox  Chiireh 
of  the  East,  compiled  by  the  Rev.  Charles  R.  Hale,  S.  T.  D., 
and  printed  in  1872,  names  the  various  branches  of  the  Church, 
and  the  titles  of  the  head  of  each  branch,  as  follows :  — 

1.  The  Most  Entirely  Holy  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  New 
Rome,  and  CEcumenical  Patriarch ; 

2.  The  Most  Blessed  and  Holy  Pope  and  Patriarch  of  the  Great 
City  Alexandria,  Libya,  Pentapolis,  and  Ethiopia,  and  of  all  the  land 
of  Egypt ;  Father  of  Fathers,  Pastor  of  Pastors,  Arch  Priest  of  Arch 
Priests,  Thirteenth  Apostle,  and  Universal  Judge ; 

3.  The  Most  Blessed  and  Holy  Patriarch  of  the  Divine  City  Anti- 
OCH,  Syria,  Arabia,  CiHcia,  Iberia,  Mesopotamia,  and  all  the  East; 
Father  of  Fathers,  and  Pastor  of  Pastors  ; 

4.  The  Most  Blessed  and  Holy  Patriarch  of  the  Holy  City  Jerusa- 
lem, and  all  Palestine,  Syria,  Arabia,  beyond  Jordan,  Cana  of  Galilee 
and  Holy  Sion ; 

5 .  The  Most  Holy  Governing  Synod  of  all  the  Russias  ;  1 

6.  The  Most  Blessed  and  Holy  Archbishop  of  Nova  Justiniana  and 
all  Cyprus ; 

7.  The  Most  Blessed  and  Holy  Patriarch  of  Servia,  Metropolitan 
of  all  the  Servians  residing  in  the  Austrian  Empire,  Archbishop  of 
Carlovitz ; 

I  This  title  is  not  from  Dr.  Hale's  list. 


364  The  Holy  Eastern  Church, 

8.  The  Most  Reverend  Archbishop  of  Mount  Sinai  ; 

9.  The  MetropoHtan  of  Scanderia  and  the  sea-coast,  Archbishop  of 
Tsettin,  Exarch  of  the  Holy  Throne  of  Pek,  Vladika  of  Montenegro 
and  Berda; 

10.  The  Most  Holy  Governing  Synod  of  the  Kingdom  of  Greece.^ 

Under  these  patriarchs  and  governing  synods  are  more 
than  three  hundred  and  fifty  metropolitans,  archbishops,  and 
bishops. 

These,  it  should  be  remembered,  are  all  undoubtedly  Or- 
thodox bishops.  The  Armenian  Church  is  not  recognized  by 
the  Orthodox  as  sound,  yet  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that 
its  separation  was  the  result  of  misapprehension  and  political 
disturbances;  and  as  this  body  comprises  a  numerous  people, — 
one  perhaps  the  most  active  and  intelligent  of  all  Orientals,  —  it 
is  greatly  to  be  hoped  that  it  may  soon  cease  to  be  regarded  as 
outside  the  true  fold. 

The  chief  ruler  of  the  Armenians  is  "  The  Supreme  Catholl- 
cos  of  all  Armenians,"  and  under  him  in  1874  were  four  patri- 
archs, forty-five  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  some  forty  sees 
were  in  charge  of  vicars. 

The  number  of  people  affiliated  with  these  branches  of  the 
Church  is  somewhere  between  eighty  and  one  hundred  millions. 

In  ecclesiastical  architecture  the  West  far  surpasses  the  East, 
but  it  was  not  always  so.  Those  centuries  which  in  the  west  of 
Europe  were  marked  by  the  rise  and  development  of  Christian 
art  and  architecture,  were  those  in  which  the  whole  mind  of  the 
Eastern  Church  was  absorbed  by  the  intensity  of  its  contests 
with  the  power  of  Islam ;  and  since  then  a  large  number  of  its 
Dioceses  have  existed  within  the  Moslem  dominions,  where 
Christians  who  exhibited  any  evidence  of  wealth  were  sure  to 
be  the  victims  of  tyrannic  spoliation,  and  where  to  build  a 
church  of  any  peculiar  attractiveness  was  simply  to  supply 
Mahometans  with  a  mosque. 

True,  there  has  been  a  better  state  of  affairs  in  the  Russian 
Empire  ;  but  that  sparsely  settled  country  has  only  of  late,  if  in- 
deed it  has  even  yet,  extricated  itself  from  a  condition  of  crude 
civilization.  Churches  have  been  built  there  in  almost  incredi- 
ble numbers,  many  of  them  at  enormous  cost,  but  architecture 
as  an  art  has  found  in  them  no  considerable  development.     We 

1  This  title  is  not  from  Dr.  Hale's  list. 


The  Church  Review.  -^5r 

must  bear  it  in  mind  that  less  than  three  hun(h-ed  years  inter- 
vened between  the  reign  of  Constantine  and  the  opening  wars 
with  the  Saracens,  —  that  is  to  say,  between  pagan  j^ersecutions 
and  the  struggle  with  the  infidels,  —  a  short  time  for  an  ICastern 
people  to  create  and  establish  a  new  architecture. 

And  yet  the  Church  in  the  luist  has  made  its  mark  on  the 
architecture  of  the  world.  The  dome,  —  that  feature  without 
which  neither  S.  Paul's,  London,  nor  S.  Peter's,  Rome,  would 
have  great  distinction,  and  which  on  our  own  Capitol  at  Wash- 
ington crowns  the  noble  edifice  with  glory,  —  the  architectural 
dome  is  the  outcome  of  the  early  artistic  efi'orts  of  ]*Lastern 
Christianity,  although  so  many  Oriental  churches  have  been 
converted  into  mosques,  and  so  many  mosques  have  imitated 
this  really  Christian  form,  that  people  have  come  to  regard  the 
dome  as  a  Moslem  device. 

Not  many  existing  churches  in  Western  Europe  date  back  so 
far  as  to  the  sixth  century  of  our  era;  but  the  middle  of  that 
century  saw  complete  that  marvel  of  costliness,  the  Church  of  the 
Eternal  Wisdom,  the  patriarchal  Cathedral  of  Constantinople. 

The  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  built  by  Herod  the  Great,  was 
forty  and  six  years  in  building.  S.  Peter's  at  Rome  occupied 
one  hundred  and  seventy-five  years,  the  reigns  of  twent}^  popes, 
and  the  service  of  twelve  architects,  in  its  construction ;  but  in 
less  than  six  years  the  Emperor  Justinian  began  and  completed 
a  church  which  was  for  centuries  the  largest,  and  even  now 
ranks  among  the  most  costly  ecclesiastical  structures  that  the 
world  has  ever  seen.  Its  plan  was  the  common  one,  —  a  Greek 
cross  inscribed  within  a  rectangle.  Its  measurement  was  two 
hundred  and  forty-three  feet  in  width  by  three  hundred  and 
forty  feet  in  length,  and  it  covered  nearly  two  acres  of  land. 
No  timber  was  used  for  its  construction,  but  the  quarries  of  the 
world  contributed  sandstone,  granite,  porphyry,  and  marbles  of 
every  color,  which  were  used  in  its  walls,  piers,  and  columns. 
Its  aerial  dome  was  of  pumice-stone  and  light-weighing  Rho- 
dian  bricks,  and  all  was  adorned  with  mother-of-pearl,  jasper, 
alabaster,  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones.  The  altar  was  of 
solid  gold  and  incrusted  with  jewels ;  the  gates  were  of  carved 
bronze ;  and  the  interior  dome  w^as  decorated  with  mosaics  of 
glass,  crystal,  amber,  and  precious  stones. 

Brilliant  indeed  must  have  been  the  appearance  of  what  was 
then  by  far  the  largest  and  most  costly  cathedral  of  all  Chris- 


-^66  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

tendom,  when  it  was  presented  for  consecration  by  the  zealous 
emperor,  who  in  person  had  supervised  the  building;  and  one 
more  than  pardons  his  saying  in  the  presence  of  the  great  con- 
gregation, ''  Glory  be  to  GOD  who  hath  accounted  me  worthy 
of  such  a  work  !     I  have  beaten  you,  O  Solomon  !  " 

And  this  building  yet  stands,  mutilated,  desecrated,  and  de- 
graded to  be  the  mosque  Aya  Sofia,  but  still  grand  and  beauti- 
ful, despite  the  passing  of  thirteen  centuries  and  the  neglect  of 
Turkish  rulers ;  and  still  the  cherubim  of  the  mosaics,  peering 
through  the.  covering  which  the  Moslem  attempted,  wait  for  the 
day  when  the  infidel  shall  be  driven  out  of  Europe,  when  CHRIST 
shall  have  His  own  again,  and  when  His  servant  the  CEcumeni- 
cal  Patriarch  shall  reconcile  the  Church  and  resume  his  throne 
after  more  than  four  centuries  of  exclusion. 

The  exterior  of  Eastern  churches  is  not  often  satisfactory  to 
eyes  educated  by  the  rich  architecture  of  Western  cathedrals. 
In  Russia,  where  development  has  been  greater  than  elsewhere, 
such  a  building  as  the  Pokrovski  Cathedral  at  Moscow,  which 
is  in  fact  a  group  of  twenty-one  small  churches,  presents  a 
striking  appearance  as  seen  from  without',  —  the  multitude  of 
domes  and  spires  bright  with  color  and  gold  and  decorated  with 
chains,  globes,  and  crosses,  all  shining  under  the  sunlight,  —but 
there  is  wanting  that  stateliness,  unity,  and  dignity  which  are 
characteristic  of  ecclesiastical  edifices  in  the  West.  Churches 
of  the  Eastern  rite  are  much  smaller  than  those  of  Western 
Europe.  There  are  cathedrals  only  sixty  or  seventy  feet  long, 
and  many  monastic  and  parish  churches  are  of  Liliputian  di- 
mensions ;  but  the  universal  custom  of  standing  during  the  ser- 
vice permits  the  compression  of  many  people  into  a  smaller 
space  than  would  be  possible  if  seats  were  provided. 

The  Cathedral  of  S.  Mark,  Venice,  built  in  the  tenth  and 
eleventh  centuries,  was  patterned  after  S.  Sophia,  and  they 
who  have  seen  it  can  imagine  what  Justinian's  much  larger 
church  must  have  been.  It  speaks  volumes  for  the  Western 
estimate  of  Eastern  architecture  that  an  Italian  church  of  such 
prominence  should  have  been  built  five  hundred  years  later 
than  the  Cathedral  of  Constantinople,  and  so  closely  after  the 
same  style. 

The  accompanying  sketch  of  the  ground-plan  of  one  of  the 
churclics  at  Athens  may  be  taken  as  typically  representing  the 
plan  of  most  Eastern  churches. 


The  Church  Review. 


367 


There  is  a  Greek  cross  inscribed  within  a  square,  to  which  on 
the  west  (for  Orientation  is  ahvays  observed)  is  added  the 
narthex,  which  is  a  kind  of  vestibule,  and  which  is  often  merely 
a  lean-to  in  construction ;  the  head  of  the  cross  is  the  bema 
or  sacrarium ;  the  intersection  of  the  limbs  of  the  cross  is 
the  choir,  over  which  rises  a  dome ;   the  bema   and  choir  to- 


368  The  Holy  Eastern  Church, 

gether  may  be  considered  as  the  chancel;  the  transepts  and 
the  trapeza,  or  nave,  are  about  equal  in  length.  The  narthex, 
once  the  place  for  penitents  and  catechumens,  is  now  often 
assigned  to  the  women,  who  were  formerly  accommodated  in 
galleries,  the  separation  of  the  sexes  being  strictly  observed. 

Inscribing  a  cross  within  a  square,  there  remain  four  exterior 
spaces.  The  two  western  spaces  or  corners  are  sometimes  sep- 
arate chapels ;  sometimes  they  open  into  the  trapeza,  or  nave, 
as  do  our  aisles,  and  are  occupied  by  the  congregation.  The 
two  rooms  in  the  eastern  corners  have  doors  opening  into  the  sa- 
crarium  and  the  transepts  ;  often  they  are  practically  parts  of  the 
sacrarium.  That  in  the  southeast  is  the  diaconicon, — that  is, 
sacristy  or  vestry ;  that  in  the  northeast  is  the  prothesis,  for 
which  there  is  no  equivalent  name  in  our  ecclesiastical  vocabu- 
lary, for  it  is  used  for  a  purpose  unknown  to  our  rites,  unless 
the  table,  which  in  it  stands  against  the  east  wall,  may  be  con- 
sidered a  credence. 

The  iconostasis  separates  the  prothesis,  the  sacrarium,  and 
the  vestry  from  the  rest  of  the  interior.  It  is  not  a  mere 
open-timbered  screen,  but  is  solid,  high  enough  to  prevent  the 
officiating  clergy  being  seen  over  it,  but  low  enough  to  allow 
their  voices  to  be  heard  across.  It  represents,  not  our  chancel 
or  rood  screen,  but  rather  our  altar-rails,  separating  the  sacra- 
rium from  the  choir.  The  interior  of  the  sacrarium  is  always 
apsidal  at  the  east;  and  the  altar  stands  on  the  chord  of  the  aps? 
and  so  detached  that  the  deacon  may,  according  to  the  ritual 
directions,  at  certain  times  cense  it  all  around. 

There  is  but  one  altar  in  one  Church ;  over  it  is  a  canopy, 
and  on  it  usually  is  the  ark  for  the  reserved  sacrament,  a  cross, 
and  a  book  of  the  Holy  Gospels.  Directly  in  front  of  the  altar 
are  the  holy  doors,  opening  into  the  choir;  and  on  these  and 
other  parts  of  the  iconostasis  is  lavished  much  decoration. 
Images  are  not  allowed  in  the  churches;  but  pictures,  under 
limitations,  are  permitted.  These  are  called  icons;  and  on  one 
side  of  the  holy  doors  is  the  icon  of  our  LORD ;  on  the  other, 
that  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

The  floor  of  the  bema  is  raised  at  least  one  step  above 
the  floor  of  the  church ;  and  this  raised  floor  extends  some- 
what beyond,  that  is,  west,  of  the  screen,  and  is  called  the 
ambon.  From  it  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  are  read,  and  often 
there  is   no  other  place   from  which  to  preach;    but   sermons 


The  C /litre k  Review.  369 

arc  not  so  common  as  to  rccjuirc   any  special  provision  for  a 
preacher. 

It  is  easy  to  discern  in  the  phm  of  an  Eastern  church  that  of 
its  model,  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  narthex  represents  the 
court  of  the  Gentiles;  the  nave,  the  court  of  the  Jews;  the 
choir,  the  holy  place;  the  screen,  the  veil  of  the  temple; 
beyond   which    is  the   sanctuary,  the    Holy   of  Holies. 

The  priest's  every-day  dress  is  a  cassock  of  any  sober  color  he 
may  prefer.  The  official  vestments  are  often  exceedingly  rich, 
made  of  costly  silks  and  velvets,  and  bright  in  color;  some  of 
those  shown  to  travellers  in  Moscow  arc  so  incrusted  with 
embroidery  and  jewels  that  they  will  stand  upright  alone.  Ex- 
cept in  Armenia,  the  mitre  is  never  worn ;  but  prelates  wear  a 
domed  head-dress,  —  some  of  them  a  kind  of  crown.  And 
these,  as  also  the  head-covering  of  the  priests,  —  a  brimless  silk 
hat,  —  are  very  striking,  and  suit  well  with  the  long  hair  and 
flowing  beards  of  the  wearers. 

Scarcely  any  rite  is  performed,  whether  by  day  or  night, 
without  lighted  candles  or  lamps.     A  censer  is  in  frequent  use. 

It  is  not  the  vernacular  language  that  is  used  for  the  service 
in  any  Oriental  church ;  but  in  the  Orthodox  communion  it  is 
the  ancient,  and  in  some  cases  the  otherwise  obsolete,  language 
of  the  country,  —  that  Vv^hich  was  current  when  the  Church  was 
made  know^n  there,  and  one  which  the  people  can  foi'  the  most 
part  still  understand.  There  is  perhaps  no  exception  to  the 
statement  that  in  every  historical  church  the  language  used  in 
worship  is  antiquated,  if  not  archaic:  what  was  once  the  ver- 
nacular has  become  an  unused  or  altered  tongue,  and  the  for- 
mulas of  the  Church  escape  alteration.  Our  own  Church  shows 
this  tendency,  and  even  the  extemporaneous  prayers  of  denomi- 
national ministers  are  framed  in  language  which  is  not  used  in 
common  speech. 

Latin,  the  ancient  Italian  vernacular,  and  the  official  language 
for  centuries  in  all  the  west  of  Europe  when  the  Church  was 
planted  there,  is  still  the  language  of  the  Roman  Church,  and 
officially  of  the  English  Convocations.  So  in  the  East,  the 
office-books  of  the  Greek  Church  are  in  almost  classical  Greek. 
The  Georgians  use  in  the  Church  their  old  and  statelier  lan- 
guage, and  the  Russians  the  Sclavonic. 

An  attempt  to  reform  the  Russian  books,  although  intended 
as  a  return  to  more  ancient  ways,  was  the  cause  of  a  great  dis- 

24 


370  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

sent  in  Russia;  and  our  Church  does  not  take  to  the  Revised 
Version  of  the  Bible,  and  has  recently  rejected  a  slightly  modern- 
ized Prayer-Book. 

The  Oriental  service-books  are  very  numerous,  —  somewhere 
about  twenty,  —  some  very  large ;  and  although  two  of  them 
are  devoted  to  telling  how  the  rest  shall  be  used,  a  complete 
knowledge  of  that  subject  cannot  be  learned  from  books,  but  is 
acquired  in  part  by  oral  tradition  of  unwritten  rules.  Among 
these  books  are  lectionaries  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  and 
the  Psalms.  The  entire  Bible  is  rarely  seen  in  the  churches. 
The  most  important  book  is  that  which  contains  the  liturgies 
(that  is,  communion  services)  of  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Basil,  and 
the  Pre-Sanctified.  The  two  former  are  older  than  our  Bible 
canon. 

All  the  Eastern  offices  are  very  long,  not  to  say  tedious,  rep- 
resenting rather  the  proper  use  in  houses  of  the  religious  than  a 
popular  form.  All  of  them  are  interspersed  with  interlocutions 
between  the  deacon  and  the  priest,  often  as  if  the  deacon  were 
prompting  the  priest;  and  besides  these  troparia,  short  holy 
hymns  not  metrical  are  sung  between  the  prayers.  Prayer- 
Books  are  not  used  by  the  laity,  most  of  whom  cannot  read; 
and  the  responses,  except  those  by  the  choir,  are  limited  to  a 
few  exclamations  at  well-known  points  in  the  service.  The 
people  stand,  but  are  almost  continually  bowing  and  crossing 
themselves,  a  la  grccque,  and  sometimes  prostrate  themselves. 

The  great  length  of  the  services,  which  were  framed  for  use 
chiefly  in  monasteries,  induces  very  rapid  reading  or  singing,  — 
so  rapid  that  it  is  difficult,  even  for  one  who  understands  the  lan- 
guage, to  follow  the  meaning.  No  instrumental  music  is  used. 
All  singing  is  by  men ;  and  although  it  is  peculiar,  and  at  first 
not  agreeable,  it  soon  becomes  acceptable  and  even  attractive. 
The  Constantinopolitan  rites  are  those  most  widely  used ;  but 
there  are  many,  some  very  important,  variations. 

On  the  day  of  a  child's  birth,  the  priest  goes  to  the  house  ^nd 
says  prayers  for  the  recovery  of  the  mother,  for  the  child,  for 
the  mother,  and  for  those  who  live  in  the  house.  On  the  eighth 
day  the  infant  is  taken  to  church,  in  the  west  end  of  which  a 
short  office  is  said,  ending  with  **  Hail,  Mary  !  "  On  the  fortieth 
day  the  child,  its  mother,  and  the  sponsor  or  sponsors  attend  at 
the  church.  After  the  usual  blessing  follow  prayers  for  the 
child  and  its  mother.     Then  the  priest,  taking  the  child  in  his 


The  Church  Review.  371 

arms  and  standing  in  the  west  doorway  of  the  nave,  says,  "  N., 
the  servant  of  God,  is  churched,  in  the  name,"  etc.  Taking 
the  child  into  the  church,  he  proceeds,  "He  shall  come  into 
Thine  house,  he  shall  worship  before  Thy  holy  temple."  In 
the  middle  of  the  church  he  proclaims,  "  The  servant  of 
God  is  churched,"  adding,  "  In  the  midst  of  the  church  will 
I  praise  Thee."  He  then  takes  the  child  to  the  sanctuary,  say- 
ing, Nunc  dimittis,  lays  it  down  by  the  holy  doors,  whence 
a  sponsor  takes  it  up ;  and  the  priest  giving  the  dismissal,  all 
depart. 

Very  likely  the  child  may  have  been  previously  baptized  (in 
case  of  need  any  Orthodox  person  may  baptize)  ;  but  in  such 
cases  the  child,  if  it  lives,  is  afterward  brought  to  church  as  with 
us,  and  the  rest  of  the  office  is  celebrated  according  to  the 
ritual. 

The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  preceded  by  unction.  After  the 
oil  has  been  blessed  by  the  priest,  the  person  about  to  be  bap- 
tized is  brought  forward ;  and  the  priest  takes  of  the  oil  and 
makes  the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  his  forehead  and  breast  and 
between  the  shoulders,  saying,  *'  N.,  the  servant  of  GoD,  is  an- 
ointed with  the  oil  of  gladness  in  the  name  of,"  etc. ;  and  he 
signs  the  back  and  breast.  When  he  touches  the  breast,  he 
says,  "For  the  healing  of  soul  and  body;  "  the  ears,  "For  the 
hearing  of  faith ;  "  the  feet,  "  That  thy  steps  may  advance ;  " 
the  hands,  "  Thy  hands  have  made  me  and  fashioned  me." 

The  rule  of  the  Eastern  Church  is  that  the  person  to  be 
baptized  should  be  immersed  three  times  by  a  priest,  who  pro- 
nounces at  the  same  time  the  formula,  "  N.,  the  servant  of  GOD, 
is  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  SON,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  now  and  ever  and  ages  to  ages.  Amen." 
While,  however,  trine  immersion  is  the  rule,  it  is  not  invariable ; 
trine  affusion  is  practised  in  Russia,  Servia,  and  Montenegro,  if 
not  elsewhere.  The  leading  features  of  the  baptismal  service 
resemble  our  own.  The  baptistery  was  once  an  entirely  distinct 
building ;  later  it  was  connected  to  the  narthex  by  a  passage- 
way, and  now  is  sometimes  within  the  narthex.  The  font  is 
usually  a  pool  lined  with  wood  or  metal;  in  Russia  it  is  some- 
times movable. 

Confirmation,  called  in  the  East  the  "  Mystery  of  Chrism," 
immediately  succeeds  baptism,  and  is  ordinarily  performed  by 
a  priest.     The  Latin  Church  forbids   priests   to   confirm,  except 


372  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

under  dispensation,  and  the  Eastern  Church  makes  the  priest 
habitually  the  minister.  But  the  episcopal  authority  is  by  no 
means  absent,  for  the  oil  used  is  consecrated  in  both  West 
and  East  by  the  bishop  on  Maundy  Thursday;  so  that  in  both 
cases  an  episcopal  act  is  required  to  make  the  rite  valid.  By 
the  ritual  of  Constantinople  the  priest  "  anoints  the  baptized 
person  with  holy  oil,  making  the  sign  of  the  cross  on  his  fore- 
head, eyes,  nostrils,  mouth,  both  ears,  breast,  hands,  and  feet, 
saying,  '  The  seal  of  the  gift  of  the  HOLY  Ghost.  Amen.'  " 
After  confirmation  infants  are  immediately  communicated,  the 
priest  dipping  his  finger  in  the  chalice  and  touching  the  child's 
lips. 

Auricular  confession  Is  theoretically  the  rule  In  all  Eastern,  as 
in  all  Western,  churches.  The  Church  expects  It  four  times  a 
year;  but  that  at  Easter  Is  the  only  one  really  required.  It  is 
not  a  prerequisite  for  every  communion.  An  office  exists  for 
the  appointment  of  confessors  by  the  bishop.  Confession  Is  not 
inquisitorial  or  suggestive  as  In  the  Roman  Church.  Unless 
mortal  sin  is  confessed,  no  penance  is  imposed ;  nor  does  abso- 
lution necessarily  follow.  The  Greek  form  of  absolution  is 
precatory,  not  positive,  like  that  In  the  English  Office  for  the 
Visitation  of  the  Sick.  In  Russia  an  annual  confession  is 
required  by  law,  —  not  rigidly  enforced,  however;  and  there 
absolution  is  authoritative.  This  annual  confession  Is  very  per- 
functory. During  Lent  the  churches  are  crowded  by  the  faith- 
ful, who,  ranged  in  long  queues,  press  one  upon  another  with 
tapers  in  their  hands,  frequently  bowing  the  head  and  making 
the  sign  of  the  cross.  Each,  advancing  in  turn,  answers  the 
priest's  question  with,  '*  I  am  a  sinner,"  receives  absolution  and 
a  certificate,  for  which  he  pays,  and  passing  on,  lights  his  taper, 
reverently  placing  It  before  the  holy  pictures.  A  few  days  later 
he  returns  for  the  communion.  There  are  no  confessional- 
boxes  ;  but  usually,  not  always,  a  screen  separates  the  priest 
and  penitent  from  others.  Real  privacy  is  very  uncommon. 
Confessions  of  well-to-do  people  are  often  received  in  their 
houses,  the  penitent  sitting  during  confession,  kneeling  only  to 
receive  absolution. 

Ordination  is  not  necessarily  for  life ;  a  priest  may  be  relieved 
by  dispensation.  Parish  priests  must  be  married ;  bishops  must 
be  single;  monks  must  be  unmarried;  and  the  bishops  are 
selected  from  among  the  monks  almost  exclusively. 


TJic  Church  Review, 


zn 


Marriage  is  indissoluble  according  to  the  Churcli ;  Ijut  the 
law  in  Russia  permits  divorce  for  certain  reasons.  The  innocent 
party  only  is  allowed  to  marry  again.  Third  marriages  arc  not 
considered  respectable,  and  fourth  marriages  arc  forbidden. 
Marriages  always  take  place  in  church,  and  none  are  solemnized 
in  Lent. 

Unction  of  the  sick  is  practised  everywhere  in  the  ICast,  — 
not  extreme  unction  as  in  the  Roman  Church,  but  commonly 
in  severe  illness. 

I  have  said  that  there  is  no  name  in  our  ecclesiastical  lan- 
guage for  the  prothesis  of  the  Eastern  churches,  because  we 
have  no  rite  like  that  for  which  that  portion  of  their  churches  is 
used.  The  chief  office  of  worship  in  the  East  is,  as  it  should  be 
everywhere,  the  office  of  the  Holy  Communion,  —  the  Liturgy 
proper.  In  preparation  for  it  five  small  loaves  of  leavened 
bread  are  provided.  These  are  often  made  from  selected  grains 
of  wheat,  washed,  ground,  mixed,  and  some- 
times even  baked  in  the  church.  On  each 
loaf  is  a  stamp,  - —  ''  jESUS  CHRIST  con- 
quers^' —  commonly  called  the  ''  Holy 
Lamb,"  or  the  "  Holy  Bread."  These 
loaves  and  the  wine  are  placed  on  a 
table  which  stands  against  the  east  wall 
of  the  prothesis.  The  priest  and  deacon, 
vesting  in  the  diaconicon,  pass  through  the 
sanctuary  into  the  prothesis ;  and  the  office  begins  there  with 
ablution  of  their  hands,  and  proceeds  with  great  formality  and 
reverence. 

From  one  loaf  the  priest  with  a  special  spear-shaped  instru- 
ment cuts  out  the  Holy  Lamb  and  places  it  in  the  centre  of  a 
disk.  From  a  second  loaf  he  cuts  a  portion  and  places  it  on 
the  right  side  of  the  Holy  Lamb,  in  honor  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
From  a  third  loaf  he  cuts  nine  portions,  which  are  placed  in 
three  rows  on  the  left  of  the  Holy  Lamb,  in  honor  respectively 
of  S.  John  Baptist,  the  prophets,  apostles,  fathers,  martyrs, 
ascetics,  saints,  the  parents  of  the  Virgin,  and  for  S.  Chrysos- 
tom  or  S.  Basil,  according  to  the  Liturgy  to  be  used  that  day. 
From  a  fourth  loaf  the  priest  cuts  portions,  placing  them  in  two 
rows  below  the  Holy  Lamb,  —  one  row  in  memory  of  the  dead, 
and  the  other  in  honor  of  the  living.  In  these  last  tvvo  rows  the 
deacon  adds  portions  to   commemorate  such  of  the  living  and 


IC 

XC 

N  i 

KA 

274  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

dead  as  he  pleases.  The  whole  is  then  reverently  covered,  and 
the  clergymen  return  to  the  sanctuary,  where  this  office  ends, 
and  the  Liturgy  of  the  Catechumens  begins  with  a  short  litany, 
followed  by  an  initial  hymn. 

Then  occurs  the  *'  Little  Entrance,"  which  is  the  bringing  in 
of  the  Gospel.  The  deacon  takes  the  volume  from  the  altar, 
and  going  before  the  priest,  himself  preceded  by  tapers,  the 
little  procession  passes  from  the  bema  through  the  prothesis 
into  the  church,  and  so  on  to  the  holy  doors,  and  through 
them  back  to  the  altar,  where  the  Gospel  is  again  deposited. 
Then  the  hymn  of  the  trisagion  is  sung, —  *'  Holy  GOD,  Holy 
and  Mighty,  Holy  and  Immortal,  have  mercy  upon  us  !  "  After 
this  come  the  lections. 

The  Apostle  (Epistle)  is  read  by  one  who  stands  at  the 
holy  doors.  The  Gospel  is  read  from  the  ambon,  —  which 
may  be  a  sort  of  pulpit,  or  only  a  part  of  the  raised  platform 
outside  the  screen.  To  this  place  the  deacon  goes,  through  the 
holy  doors,  bearing  the  volume,  and  preceded  by  tapers.  As  he 
passes  out  of  the  sanctuary,  the  priest,  standing  before  the  altar 
and  facing  the  people,  says,  "  Wisdom,  stand  up.  Let  us  hear 
the  Holy  Gospel.  Peace  to  all !  "  And  after  the  reading,  the 
Gospel  is  returned  to  the  priest  in  the  same  order  as  was  ob- 
served in  passing  out.  After  the  reading  of  the  Gospel  there 
follows  a  prayer  for  the  catechumens,  who  are  about  to  leave, 
and  thus  ends  what  we  might  call  the  ante-communion,  the 
deacon  proclaiming,  ''  Let  all  the  catechumens  depart.  Cate- 
chumens, depart.  Let  all  the  catechumens  depart.  Let  there 
be  no  catechumens.     Let  all  the  faithful." 

After  the  departure  of  the  non-communicants  the  service  pro- 
ceeds with  prayers  for  the  faithful,  litanies,  and  hymns.  After 
the  Cherubic  Hymn  occurs  the  ''  Great  Entrance."  The  priest 
and  deacon  pass  from  the  sanctuary  into  the  prothesis,  where 
the  priest,  taking  up  the  covered  disk  with  the  bread  upon  it, 
places  it  upon  the  head  or  shoulder  of  the  deacon,  who  also 
bears  a  censer,  and,  himself  taking  the  chalice,  they  pass  from 
the  prothesis  into  the  church,  and  by  the  west  end  of  the  choir* 
up  to  and  through  the  holy  doors,  when  the  elements  are 
placed  upon  the  altar.  In  large  churches  and  on  high  days  this 
entrance  is  one  of  great  pomp,  the  people  bowing  reverently  as 
the  procession  passes  by.  In  the  sanctuary  warm  water  is 
mixed  with  the  wine  in  the  chalice. 


The  Church  Review,  375 

Tlic  principal  characteristics  of  the  communion  service  re- 
semble those  of  our  own,  althoui^h  they  are  interspersed  with 
interlocutions  between  the  priest  and  deacon  in  a  way  peculiar 
to  the  Eastern  rite.  There  are  the  first  prayer  of  oblation  of 
the  elements,  the  creed,  the  triumphal  hymn,  the  commemora- 
tion of  our  Lord's  Passion  and  of  the  institution  of  the  sacra- 
ment, the  oblation  of  the  body  and  blood,  the  invocation,  the 
prayer  for  transmutation,  the  intercession  for  quick  and  dead, 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Sanctus,  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  the 
confession,  the  communion,   and  the  thanksgiving. 

The  communion  is  administered  to  the  people  in  both  spe- 
cies, sometimes  as  it  is  in  our  churches,  sometimes  a  sop  of 
bread  and  wine  from  a  spoon.  The  people  receive  from 
the  priest  standing,  and  the  deacon,  following,  wipes  each  one's 
lips  with  a  veil.  The  words  of  administration  (Constantino- 
politan  rite)  are:  **  N.,  the  servant  of  GoD,  is  made  partaker 
of  the  pure  and  holy  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  and  GOD 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  life 
everlasting." 

Communion  once  a  year  is  required  of  the  laity,  and  is  gen- 
erally considered  sufficient.  Some  very  devout  people  receive 
every  month ;  but  even  this  is  unusual.  The  priests  communi- 
cate every  day. 

The  burial  offices  are  various,  different  services  being  used  for 
the  laity,  monks,  priests,  and  children.  On  the  death  of  a  lay 
person  the  priest  goes  to  the  house,  and  putting  incense  in  his 
censer,  gives  the  benediction.  All  present  join  in  saying  the 
trisagion,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  some  collects.  Li  the  case 
of  a  person  of  rank  relays  of  priests  recite  the  office  so  long  as 
the  body  remains  in  the  house.  When  carried  to  the  church, 
the  corpse  is  placed  in  the  narthex,  and  the  service  proceeds 
with  prayers,  hymns,  versicles,  and  responses.  The  Epistle  is 
I  Tim.  iv.  13  to  the  end;  the  Gospel  is  John  v.  24  to  31.  The 
kinsfolk,  following  the  example  of  the  priest,  kiss  the  dead 
while  a  very  solemn  recitative  is  sung.  The  body  is  carried  to 
the  grave,  the  clergy  singing,  and  when  it  is  laid  in  the  tomb, 
the  priest  casts  upon  it  crosswise  oil,  earth,  and  the  ashes  from 
his  censer.     Among  the  troparia  are  these :  — 

''With  just  spirits  made  perfect  give  rest,  O  Saviour,  to  the 
soul  of  Thy  servant,  guarding  it  to  the  blessed  life  that  is  from 
Thee !  " 


376  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

"  In  Thy  repose,  O  Lord,  where  all  Thy  saints  rest,  give  rest 
also  to  Thy  servant,  for  Thou  only  art  a  lover  of  men !  " 

A  common  inscription  on  monuments  is,  "  Good  Christians 
are  entreated   to  pray  for  the  soul  of  N." 

Absolution  of  the  dead  is  clearly  practised  in  Russia,  and  is 
suggested  in  the  offices  elsewhere ;  but  the  Roman  doctrine  of 
purgatory  is  not  held,  nor  are  purgatorial  Masses  used. 

Among  the  minor  offices  are  those  for  laying  the  foundation 
for  a  dwelling  or  a  church  ;  consecrating  or  reconciling  a  church  ; 
on  washing  the  feet  on  Thursday  in  Holy  Week ;  consecration 
of  articles  for  use  in  a  church;  for  a  haunted  house;  planting; 
vintage;  against  blight;  over  a  new  vessel;  in  drought,  plague, 
earthquake,  and  war;  also  one  for  children  that  have  bad 
eyes. 

The  ecclesiastical  year  of  the  Eastern  Church  begins  in  Janu- 
ary at  what  is  called  in  our  calendar  the  third  Sunday  after 
Epiphany,  but  which  they  name,  as  they  do  many  others,  for 
the  Gospel  of  the  day,  the  "  Sunday  of  the  Publican  and 
Pharisee." 

They  have  no  Advent  season ;  but  there  is  a  forty-day  fast, 
from  November  15  to  Christmas  Day,  called  the  **  Fast  of  the 
Nativity."  There  are  two  hundred  and  twenty-six  days  in  the 
year  scrupulously  observed  as  days  of  abstinence.  In  Lent 
the  use  of  meat,  fish,  cheese,  eggs,  butter,  oil,  and  milk  is  for- 
bidden ;  caviare  and  other  preparations  of  fishes'  eggs,  shell- 
fish, crabs,  and  lobsters,  are  allowed.  On  Saturdays  and  Sundays 
—  the  latter  are  fast-days  in  Lent  —  more  than  one  meal  and 
the  use  of  oil  is  permitted.     Wine  may  be  used  at  all  times. 

Our  first  Sunday  in  Lent  is  called  Orthodox  Sunday;  our 
Good  Friday,  the  Holy  Sufferings  of  our  Lord;  our  Easter, 
Pascha,  or  Bright  Sunday;  our  Whitsunday,  Pentecost;  our 
Trinity  Sunday,  All  Saints'  Sunday;  our  first  after  Trinity, 
second  after  Pentecost,  and  so  forward.  Between  Easter  and 
Pentecost  kneeling  is  forbidden,  and  the  usual  posture  at  prayer 
is  standing,  which,  no  doubt,  is  primitive. 

Monasteries  and  hermitages  abound,  and  the  ascetic  or  con- 
templative life  is  highly  honored.  There  are  no  regular  orders 
of  monks  as  in  the  West,  no  rules  like  those  of  the  Franciscans, 
Benedictines,  etc. ;  but  monks  are  governed  by  the  canons  of 
ancient  councils,  and  by  local  tradition  and  custom. 

Nunneries  are  much  less  common.     In  Russia  women  must 


The  CJnirch  Review,  2>77 

attain  a  certain  age  before  bein<^r  professed.  Some  monasteries 
are  subject  to  an  abbot,  or  archimandrite,  and  hold  all  thin<;s  in 
common;  in  others,  each  monk  hves  as  lie  i)leases  and  can 
afford,  tlie  government  being  semi-repubHcan,  but  in  these  the 
public  opinion  of  the  brotherhood  prevents  any  departure  from 
certain  customs  of  the  place. 

Mount  Athos,  a  peninsula  on  the  coast  of  Roumclia,  is  entirely 
occupied  by  monks  and  always  has  been  so  since  the  time  of 
Constantine ;  even  the  Turks  have  respected  them.  There  are 
twenty  monasteries  on  the  Holy  Mountain,  as  it  is  called,  —  some 
of  them  of  very  great  size,  including  many  chapels,  and  shelter- 
ing many  hundreds  of  brothers;  and  some  are  very  small.  No 
female,  human  or  animal,  is  allowed  on  the  peninsula.  The 
monks  never  cut  hair  or  beard,  and  their  life  is  for  the  most  part 
one  of  simplicity  and  devotion,  but  there  is  now  little  learning 
or  study.  Here  is  preserved  the  custom  of  calling  the  people 
to  service  by  striking  a  mallet  on  a  board,  the  manner  of  sound- 
ing the  call  denoting  the  character  of  the  approaching  service. 

Bishops  usually  are  selected  from  among  the  dignitaries  of 
the  monasteries.  In  Russia,  the  Holy  Synod  nominates  three 
persons  to  the  Tsar,  who  chooses  one  of  them  to  fill  the  vacant 
bishopric  ;  and  each  bishop  has  a  council,  the  members  of  which, 
nominated  by  him,  must  be  approved  by  the  synod.  The  selec- 
tion of  high  ecclesiastics  in  Moslem  countries  is  often  the 
occasion  of  disreputable  intrigues. 

It  is  a  rule  of  the  Eastern  Church  that  the  parish  priest  — 
called  pope  in  Russia  —  shall  be  married;  and  in  order  to  be  a 
parish  priest,  the  man  must  first  be  married.  So,  too,  if  the  wife 
dies,  the  priest  often  loses  his  parish  and  retires  to  a  monastery; 
whence  originates  the  Russian  saying  about  being  cared  for  as 
tenderly  as  a  pope's  wife.  The  priests'  stipends  are  exceedingly 
small,  and  their  living  depends  considerably  upon  fees,  which  are 
due  to  them  at  confession,  baptism,  unction,  and  burial,  as  well 
as  at  marriages ;  and  in  Russia,  where  these  fees  are  not  fixed,  the 
people  chaffer  with  their  popes  as  to  the  amount  to  be  paid  on 
these  occasions.  As  a  rule,  the  popes  have  little  education,  and 
as  a  pope's  children  have  the  preference  in  the  priestly  schools, 
there  is  a  tendency  toward  their  becoming  a  separate  class. 

It  is  evident  that  in  these  Eastern  churches  the  points  of 
agreement  with  our  own  are  many,  and  that  fundamental  differ- 
ences are   few.     They  acknowledge  the  propriety  of  the  self- 


37^  The  Holy  Eastern  Church, 

government  of  churches  bounded  by  national  Hnes ;  they 
own  no  single  ruler  whose  commands  are  to  be  obeyed  by  all 
Christians,  and  whose  decisions  are  infallible ;  they  do  not  tie 
themselves  to  any  one  form  of  ritual,  nor  do  they  use  the  same 
language  in  their  services,  whatever  may  be  the  vernacular 
tongue,  but,  theoretically  at  least,  recognize  the  propriety  of 
their  being  understood  by  the  people;  they  do  not  require 
celibacy  of  parish  priests  or  deny  the  cup  to  the  laity;  to  them 
the  immaculate  conception  of  the  Virgin  Mary  is  no  article  of 
faith,  and  by  them  the  papal  infallibility  is  held  in  derision. 
In  such  details  as  their  belief  differs  from  our  own,  the  differ- 
ences are  matters,  not  of  dogma,  but  of  pious  opinion,  or  else 
are  merely  the  outgrowth  of  superstition  resulting  from  imper- 
fect education. 

Why,  then,  should  we  and  they  be  out  of  each  other's  com- 
munion? Why  may  we  not  make  one  great  advance  toward 
ecclesiastical  unity,  and  break  down  one  of  those  barriers  which 
mar  Christendom,  by  consolidating  the  holy  Eastern  churches 
with  those  of  the  Anglican  rite? 

In  our  yearning  for  Christian  unity  we  are  apt  to  limit  our 
expectations  to  bringing  back  to  our  fold  those  who  have 
strayed  from  our  communion,  and  to  centre  our  attention  upon 
the  sects  which  are  scattered  throughout  America,  or  which  use 
the  English  tongue.  Now,  in  the  East  there  is  a  communion 
whose  antiquity.  Apostolic  succession,  and  ancient  ritual  no 
reasonable  person  questions.  It  occupies  a  large  part  of  the 
habitable  globe,  one  in  which  tradition  is  respected  and  where 
novelties  are  suspected ;  its  people  are  Oriental  in  their  ad- 
herence to  what  is  old  and  their  unwillingness  to  make  changes. 
The  oldest  Christian  sees  are  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  its  bish- 
ops trace  their  descent  in  an  unbroken  line,  —  those  of  Jerusalem 
to  James  the  brother  of  our  Lord  ;  those  of  Alexandria  to  S. 
Mark;  those  of  Antioch  to  S.  Peter,  who  undoubtedly  ruled 
at  Antioch  before  he  possibly  ruled  at  Rome  ;  and  they  honor  as 
their  CEcumenical  Patriarch  the  direct  successor  of  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople,  the  last  capital  of  a  world-wide  empire. 
Their  communion  embraces  one  quarter  of  those  who  call  them- 
selves Christians  ;  and  if  we  could  coalesce  with  this  great  church 
both  of  us  would  be  strengthened  for  other  fusions.  In  what, 
then,  consist  the  obstacles? 

There  is  no  occasion  to  go  back  and  study  the  controversies 


The  Church  Reviezv,  379 

of  a  thousand  years  ago;  but  \vc  want  to  learn  what  are  the 
present  difficulties.  As  neither  the  Easterns  nor  the  Anglicans 
have  any  unit  of  organization  by  which  authoritative  declarations 
can  be  made,  it  is  necessary  to  gather  the  consensus  of  opinion 
in  each,  from  acts  in  the  recent  past  and  from  the  declarations 
and  other  writings  of  learned  men  and  high  ecclesiastics  of  our 
own  times. 

Let  us  first  understand  that  the  spirit  of  the  Eastern  Orthodox 
churches  is  certainly  not  opposed  to  intercommunion  ;  and  they 
realize  that  it  would  strengthen  them  both  in  relation  to  the 
Latin  and  the  Oriental  schismatics. 

In  1869  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  at  the  request  of  the 
Southern  Convocation  of  England,  addressed  to  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople  a  letter  asking,  among  other  matters,  in  behalf 
of  Anglican  Churchmen  dying  within  Eastern  jurisdictions  the 
kind  offices  of  the  Orthodox  clergy  in  the  absence  of  those  of 
our  own  communion,  and  burial  in  consecrated  ground,  therein 
offering  to  reciprocate. 

To  this  the  patriarch  replied  by  issuing  an  encyclical  letter  to 
his  metropolitans,  enjoining  it  upon  them  to  assist  at  the  burial 
of  Anglican  Churchmen  in  Orthodox  countries  where  no  An- 
glican priest  or  cemetery  was  at  hand,  and  the  Holy  Synod  of 
Athens  also  willingly  granted  the  same  privileges.  When  the 
Bishop  of  Gibraltar  consecrated  Christ  Church  in  Constantinople, 
the  patriarch  sent  the  Bishop  of  Pera  to  represent  him  at  the  cere- 
mony, and  an  archimandrite  of  Mount  Athos  attended  in  person. 
Soon  after  the  Bishop  of  Gibraltar,  by  invitation  of  the  Metro- 
politan of  Athens,  was  present  in  his  robes  at  a  thanksgiving 
service  in  the  Cathedral  at  Athens. 

In  1870  the  Archbishop  of  Syra  and  Tenos  visited  England 
for  the  purpose  of  consecrating  a  Greek  church  in  Liverpool, 
and  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  were  both  repre- 
sented there  by  clergymen ;  and  while  in  England  he  of  Syra 
was  present  in  his  robes  at  the  consecration  of  two  bishops  of 
our  communion. 

This  visit  of  the  Orthodox  archbishop  to  England,  and  the 
attentions  bestowed  upon  him  by  the  Church  and  the  universities, 
excited  great  and  grateful  notice  in  the  East.  The  Holy  Synod 
of  Greece,  in  acknowledging  the  hospitality  and  courtesies  ex- 
tended to  one  of  their  members,  declared  **  that  it  smooths  our 
way  to  mutual  communion  in  Christ;   and  what  we  have  long 


^8o  l^he  Holy  Eastern  Church, 

desired  and  now  entreat  of  the  Most  High  —  to  see  divided 
members  of  CHRIST'S  Church  come  together  again  —  can  ap- 
pear to  us  no  longer  as  a  mere  wish  or  a  vain  request,  but  as  an 
aim  which  by  God's  favor  we  may  hope  shall  be  realized." 

Cyril,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  said,  "The  most  sweet  auguries 
of  a  bright  future  have  begun  to  dawn.  May  it  be  the  pleasure 
of  the  Most  High  that  it  may  be  increased  to  a  brilliant 
sun  !  "  And  Gregory,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  **  These  things 
straighten,  smooth,  and  prepare  beforehand  the  ways  and  the 
paths  of  the  spiritual  unity  and  fellowship  of  the  faithful 
everywhere." 

In  1 87 1  Mr.  S.  G.  Hatherly,  an  Englishman,  was  ordained  to 
the  priesthood  at  Constantinople,  and  started  a  congregation  at 
Wolverhampton,  in  England,  manifestly  with  a  view  to  prose- 
lyting members  of  the  Church.  A  remonstrance  was  made,  and 
very  promptly  for  Eastern  ways  the  patriarch  bade  Mr.  Hath- 
erly to  teach  *''  duly  the  little  Orthodox  flock  over  whom  you 
have  been  called  and  appointed  by  the  Church  to  be  priest,  but 
never  to  think  of  assuming  to  proselytize  a  single  member  of 
the  Anglican  Church ;  "  and  he  adds,  "  Our  fervent  desire  is 
.  .  .  that  through  sincere  care,  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  and 
by  preparatory  labor,  all  differences  may  be  removed,  and  the 
unity  of  the  churches  may  follow." 

The  differences  to  be  removed  as  viewed  from  the  Eastern 
standpoint  are  suggested  from  various  sources. 

The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Gregory  VI.,  having  re- 
ceived from  the  primate  of  all  England  a  Greek  version  of  the 
English  Prayer-Book,  and  having  carefully  perused  the  book, 
expressed  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  statements  in  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  concerning  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  Divine  Eucharist,  the  number  of  the  sacraments,  the  eccb- 
siastical  tradition,  the  authority  of  the  genuine  CEcumenlcal 
Councils,  the  mutual  relations  of  the  Church  on  earth  and  that 
in  heaven,  and  moreover,  the  honor  and  reverence  due  fromi  us 
to  those  who  are  the  contemplative  and  active  heroes  of  the 
faith,  the  adamantine  martyrs  and  ascetics,  savored  too  much  of 
novelty.  And  as  to  Article  XIX.,  which  says,  **  As  the  churches 
of  Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  have  erred,  so  also  the 
Church  of  Rome  hath  erred,  not  only  in  their  living  and  manner 
of  ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters  of  faith,"  the  patriarch  wisely 
comments,  '*  Let  us  be  permitted  to  say  that  depreciation  of  our 


The  Church  Review.  ->8i 

ncIc;"hbor  Is  an  intnisioii  in  a  distinj^aiishcd  confession  of  f:uth." 
''All  these  thinc^s,"  lie  says,  "throw  us  into  suspense.  ...  So 
that  we  doubt  what  we  are  to  judi^c  of  Anc^lican  Orthodoxy." 

It  may  be  remarked  here  that  inasmuch  as  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  have  been  entirely  ic^norcd,  first,  by  our  i)\\'\\  House  of 
Bishops,  and  later  by  the  all-Anglican  Council  in  their  declara- 
tions in  behalf  of  unity,  and  as  they  have  come  to  be  universally 
regarded,  not  as  a  confession  of  faith,  but  rather  as  a  monument 
of  obsolete  controversies  in  England,  with  Protestants  on  one 
side  and  Romanists  on  the  other,  the  patriarch's  objections  to 
them  are  not  to  be  considered  as  insurmountable  obstacles. 

Rome  has  been  wise  enough  to  see  that  the  affiliation  of  the 
Eastern  and  Anglican  churches  would  be  a  check  to  her  claim 
to  world-wide  authority ;  and  her  emissaries  always  have  been 
diligent  to  imbue  the  Eastern  mind  with  doubts  as  to  our  orders. 
In  this  she  has  been  so  far  successful  that  until  within  the  last 
fifty  years  the  Church  of  England  was  always  classed  by  theo- 
logians of  the  East  with  the  heretical  Protestants;  and  one  diffi- 
culty in  reaching  the  mind  of  the  Orthodox  churches  has  been 
due  to  their  isolation  or  separation  by  distance;  but  now,  with 
more  rapid  general  and  frequent  communication  throughout 
the  world,  isolation  does  not  exist,  and  as  we  come  face  to  face 
with  the  East,  difficulties  grow  less  and  a  better  understanding 
appears. 

In  1874  a  conference  w^as  held  at  Bonn  under  the  presidency 
of  the  learned  Dr.  von  Dollinger,  the  Old  Catholic  divine,  at 
which  attended  several  Old  Catholics,  three  Russian,  one  Greek, 
and  six  English  ecclesiastics,  and  *'  a  brotherly  concurrence 
more  wide  than  had  been  expected  was  manifested  as  to  several 
important  doctrines."  The  validity  of  Anglican  orders  was 
one  subject  of  discussion.  Dr.  von  Dollinger  declaring  for  him- 
self and  the  Old  Catholics  as  a  body  that  they  had  no  shadow 
of  doubt  as  to  their  validity.  A  Russian  present  remarked  that 
doubt  had  been  expressed  in  the  writings  of  Philaret;  to  which 
Canon  Liddon  replied  that  Philaret  had  told  him  that  he  had 
not  examined  the  question  for  himself,  but  had  accepted  the 
testimony  of  Romish  writers.  The  conference  iinanimoiisly 
adopted  this  statement:  "We  agree  that  the  way  in  which  the 
filioque  was  inserted  in  the  Nicene  Creed  was  illegal ;  and  that 
with  a  view  to  future  peace  and  amity,  it  is  much  to  be  desired 
that  the  whole  Church   should   set   itself  seriously  to  consider 


382  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

whether  the  creed  could  not  be  restored  to  Its  primitive  form, 
without  sacrifice  of  any  true  doctrine  expressed  in  the  Western 
form." 

Perhaps  the  most  Interesting  presentation  of  the  points  of 
difficulty  Is  that  to  be  found  in  the  conference  in  England  In 
1870,  between  the  Archbishop  of  Syra  and  the  Bishop  of  Ely 
with  other  Anglicans. 

The  archbishop  began  by  saying  that  In  his  opinion  their 
churches  were  essentially  agreed  in  basis;  and  he  divided  the 
points  In  which  they  differed  under  three  heads  :  (^)  Things 
to  be  corrected ;  {U)  Things  to  be  discussed ;  {c)  Things  to  be 
tolerated.  The  things  to  be  discussed  it  appeared  were  such  as 
would  easily  result  in  things  capable  of  toleration  by  one  side 
or  the  other.     These  were,  — 

1.  The  number  and  form  of  the  sacraments.  This  Is  merely  a 
question  of  the  definition  of  the  word  **  sacraments."  ''  Myste- 
ries "  Is  the  name  used  by  Easterns,  and  we  should  have  no  hesi- 
tation in  allowing  orders,  penance,  matrimony,  confirmation, 
and  unction  to  be  classed  as  mysteries  or  as  sacraments  not  gen- 
erally necessary  to  salvation.  Of  course  Syra  stood  for  trine 
immersion ;  but  inasmuch  as  affusion  is  the  use  in  some  parts  of 
Eastern  churches,  and  as  Russians  in  our  day  do  not  rebaptize 
converts  from  Rome,  Immersion  cannot  be  a  sine  qua  non  ;  and 
it  should  be  remembered  that  immersion  has  the  precedence 
in  our  rubric  and  Is  frequently  practised  in  our  Church.  No 
other  Important  difference  was  stated  concerning  the  form  of 
the  sacraments. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Syra  admitted  that 
the  Idea  of  transubstantlation  did  not  appear  in  Greek  theology 
until  the  twelfth  century ;  and  his  statement  of  his  personal  be- 
lief was  not  disputed  by  the  English  clergymen. 

3.  The  priesthood  and  the  marriage  of  the  clergy.  Syra  re- 
marked that  priests  ought  to  be  spiritual  enough  to  abstain 
from  second  marriages,  and  said  that  English  orders  had  been 
questioned  on  account  of  the  second  marriages  of  bishops.  He 
allowed  that  bishops  were  married  down  to  the  sixth  century, 
and  said  that  their  marriage  was  forbidden  partly  as  a  check  to 
nepotism,  partly  as  a  concession  to  Rome,  which  the  Orthodox  at 
that  time  wished  to  please.  We  may  infer,  then,  that  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  Orthodox  should  not  reverse  the  rule  to  please 
us.  returning  to  the  primitive  custom,  or  at  least  tolerate  it  in  us. 


The  Church  Review.  3<S3 

4.  {a)  Invocation  of  saints.  Here,  too,  was  a  difference  quite 
capable  of  toleration.  Syra  dated  the  introducti(jn  of  such 
invocations  from  the  fourth  century,  {b)  Prayers  for  the  dead. 
Here  was   no  serious  difference. 

5.  Icons  and  rcHcs.  The  archbishop  was  clearly  opposed  to 
Eastern  practices,  but  tried  to  maintain  that  the  veneration  of 
holy  pictures  mii^ht  be  useful  in  some  re<^ions. 

The  one  only  point  which  appeared  definitely  to  be  corrected 
on  our  part  was  the  filioquc.  The  archbishop  owned  that  the 
English  Church  was  sound  in  doctrine,  but  summed  up  the 
Eastern  position  by  saying,  "  We  cannot  give  up  the  original 
creed.  ...  It  contains  the  judgment  of  the  Church  in  council 
from  which  the  Orthodox  cannot  swerve." 

On  his  return  the  Archbishop  of  Syra  reported  to  the  govern- 
ing Synod  of  Greece  that  "  in  the  Anglican  Church  there 
existed  an  ecclesiastical  order  totally  different  from  other  Pro- 
testants, and  in  conformity  with  the  Primitive  Church ;  "  and  as 
to  thQ  filioqite,  he  said  it"  presents  a  serious  and  confessedly  for- 
midable difficulty.  The  English  theologians,  on  the  one  hand, 
acknowledge  that  this  addition  is  unfortunate,  and  that  some 
unknown  hand  has  put  it  in  the  creed ;  but  still  they  very  much 
hesitate  to  expunge  it,  fearing  lest  by  so  doing  the  consciences 
of  men  may  be  troubled,  and  may  then  begin  to  doubt  respect- 
ing other  dogmas  of  the  Church,"  —  and  no  doubt  this  statement 
by  the  archbishop  as  to  the  position  of  the  English  theologians 
is  true,  for  they  are  a  timid  folk,  and  have  other  obstacles  to 
surmount,  growing  out  of  the  entangling  alliance  between 
Church  and  State  in  England. 

All  of  the  citations  given  above  point  to  a  gradually  increas- 
ing amenity.  It  is  evidently  not  the  Eastern  Church  alone 
which  will  have  occasion  to  tolerate.  Perhaps  the  demand  upon 
our  charity  may  be  even  the  greater ;  but  much  that  we  must 
object  to  in  their  practices  will  pass  away  with  the  progress  of 
education  in  the  East,  as  is  evident  from  the  experience  of  the 
last  fifty  years  in  the  Church  of  Greece.  History  show^s  us  that 
the  Orthodox  churches  have  often  bent  to  outward  influence  or 
internal  charity;  and  while  individuals  have  expressed  extreme 
views,  —  such  as  that  of  the  Archbishop  of  Cavalla.  that "  accord- 
ing to  our  doctrine  the  Pope  of  Rome  himself  is  neither  more 
nor  less  than  an  unbaptized  layman,  and  if  he  joined  our  com- 
munion would  have  to  be  baptized,"  —  the  Orthodox  Church  has 


384  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

been  far  from  rigorous.  In  1839  the  Roman  Church  received 
the  most  severe  check  that  it  had  experienced  since  the  time  of 
the  Reformation,  in  the  voluntary  secession  of  the  whole  Uniat 
Church  of  Poland,  numbering  two  and  a  half  millions  of  people, 
with  all  their  bishops  and  clergy,  many  of  whom  must  have 
been  baptized  according  to  the  Western  custom;  but  the  Or- 
thodox Church  imposed  no  terms  of  severity,  exacted  no  re- 
baptism,  no  reordination,  not  even  confession  of  error,  but  only 
the  declaration  that  ''  Our  LORD  jESUS  CHRIST  is  the  one  true 
Head  of  the  one  true  Church."  The  Uniat  Church  had  never 
received  the  jilioque. 

We  are  urging  it  upon  both  Protestants  and  Papists  as  a 
Christian  duty  to  return  to  the  old  paths,  to  consult  primitive 
custom,  and  to  strive  for  Christian  unity  on  the  basis  of  ancient 
unity.  No  doubt  there  are  motes  in  their  eyes,  but  there  is  a  beam 
in  our  own  eye.  The  addition  of  the  words  '*  And  the  Son"  to 
the  creed  of  the  Universal  Church  is  utterly  indefensible.  It  has 
been  declared  to  be  so  by  papal  decision,  and  by  judgment  of 
doctors  learned  in  theology ;  and  it  is  a  simple  historical  fact. 
That  conservatism  which  characterizes  minds  ecclesiastically 
trained  produces  hesitation  to  make  so  marked  a  change,  and 
inspires  attempts  to  refine  concerning  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
implied  by  the  added  words ;  but  it  is  not  a  question  of  truth 
or  untruth  that  is  before  us  now.  However  correct  may  be  the 
doctrine,  the  words  have  no  business  to  be  in  that  place  in  the 
creed.  It  was  wrong  to  interpolate  any  words  there  ;  and  if  it 
was  wrong,  why  should  we  not  acknowledge  the  error  and  re- 
turn to  the  original  symbol? 

We  of  the  American  Church  are  more  favorably  situated  for 
considering  and  acting  in  such  cases  than  is  the  Church  of 
England.  We  are  hampered  by  no  State  alliance,  and  have  no 
need  to  obtain  the  consent  of  a  secular  parliament  before  cor- 
recting our  formulas  or  negotiating  with  other  churches;  and 
the  American  mind,  even  when  ecclesiastically  trained,  does  not 
abhor  change  of  itself. 

Besides,  we  are  not  so  committed  to  formulas  which  oppose 
Eastern  prejudices  as  is  the  Church  of  England.  Nobody,  cleric 
or  lay,  is  obliged  by  our  canons  to  subscribe  the  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion; but  our  Articles  are  less  open  to  Eastern  objections  than 
those  of  the  English  Church,  in  that  we  have  providentially 
omitted  the  Article  XXI.  of  England,  which  by  denying  or  limit- 


The  CluircJi  Review,  385 

ing  the  authority  of  Gcncriil  Councils  opposes  the  opinion  of  the 
Orthodox  Church.  Article  VII.  asserts  that  the  Nicenc  Creed 
ought  thoroughly  to  be  received  and  believed  ;  and  it  cannot  be 
thoroughly  received  in  an  erroneous  versi(jn.  \\\  the  English 
Office  of  the  Holy  Communion  the  rubric  reads,  "  And  the 
Gospel  ended  shall  be  sung  or  said,  the  creed  f(jllovving;  "  and 
the  creed  following  contains  \\\ii  filioquc.  In  the  same  place  in 
the  American  office  the  rubric  reads,  "  Then  shall  be  read  the 
Apostles'  or  Nicene  Creed;  "  and  we  are  nowhere  compelled  to 
use  the  filioqiic} 

The  Invocation  which  in  the  Orthodox  churches  is  considered 
essential  for  the  transmutation  of  the  elements  at  the  Eucharist, 
is  not  to  be  found,  in  a  distinct  form,  in  the  offices  of  the  Roman 
or  English  Church,  and  it  is  in  the  American  Liturgy. 

Again,  the  tendency  to  fraternization  between  the  Eastern 
and  the  English  churches,  has  no  doubt  been  checked  by  the 
political  antagonism  existing  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain, 
and  their  political  rivalry  in  the  East.  Russia,  comprising  as  it 
does  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  Orthodox,  has  for  a  long  time 
been  the  champion  of  the  Eastern  churches  as  against  Mahom- 
etanism ;  while  Great  Britain  is  a  Mahometan  power  in  India, 
and  has  been  the  chief  supporter  of  the  Turks  in  Europe. 
This  relation  of  the  two  powers  to  the  Moslems  has  been  an 
element  of  political  strength  in  the  East,  which  Russia  is  not 
anxious  to  lose,  and  which  affiliation  of  the  churches  would 
weaken,  if  not  destroy. 

We  in  America  not  only  have  no  such  obstacle  to  overcome, 
but  our  relations  with  Russia  are  so  friendly  as  to  preclude 
prejudice;  and  our  position  in  other  Eastern  countries  is  so 
negative  as  to  forbid  jealousies.  May  it  not  be,  then,  that  the 
way  for  an  alliance  between  the  Anglican  communion  and  the 
Holy  Eastern  Church  will  be  opened  by  the  precedence  of 
the  Church  in  America? 

No  doubt  there  will  be  obstacles  to  be  surmounted.  No 
doubt  there  will  be  occasion  for  toleration  on  both  sides,  per- 
haps on  our  part  more  than  on  the  other ;   but  there  would  be 

1  This  was  true  when  written,  but  since  then  the  General  Convention,  notwith- 
standing its  expressed  desire  for  Christian  Unity  on  tlie  basis  of  the  Nicene  Creed. 
has  for  the  first  time  ordered  the  insertion  of  \.\\^  filio(]ne  in  the  Communion  Office, 
thus  adding  a  new  obstacle  to  unity  with  what  is  by  far  the  largest  body  of  Chris- 
tians outside  of  the  Roman  obedience. 


386  The  Holy  Eastern  Church. 

no  occasion  for  either  church  to  change  any  of  its  ceremonies, 
either  to  discontinue  any  that  it  now  uses  or  to  adopt  any  from 
the  other.  The  only  serious  change  on  our  part,  if  indeed  it 
would  be  a  change,  would  be  our  adoption  of  the  Nicene  Creed 
in  its  true  and  original  version.  The  space  which  separates  us 
from  the  East  is  by  no  means  so  great  as  that  which  divides  us 
from  the  Protestant  denominations,  and  the  basis  of  the  recent 
declaration  of  our  bishops  would  no  doubt  be  accepted  by  the 
Orthodox  churches. 

What  the  desired  unity  would  be  was  stated  by  Theophilus, 
Metropolitan  of  Athens  in  1872,  in  these  well-chosen  words: 

Unity,  then,  and  union  with  the  Orthodox  Church,  is  not  a  fusion 
or  a  taking  away  of  the  national  and  ethical  diversity  inwrought  by  God  ; 
it  is  not  a  slavish  subjection  of  some  to  others ;  it  is  not  a  despotic 
raising  up  or  a  tyrannical  levelling  of  national  peculiarities  and  differ- 
ences, but  a  certain  brotherly  harmonious  binding  together  of  spirit, 
manifested  through  a  common  creed,  voluntarily  accepted,  of  the  fun- 
damentals of  the  faith  which  the  Divine  Scriptures,  the  Apostolic  Tra- 
dition, and  the  (Ecumenical  Councils  of  the  undivided  Church  have 
defined  for  us.  Those  who  in  all  places  are  thus  bound  one  to  another 
realize  the  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 

Francis  J.  Parker. 


ffil}c  pctrinc  Claims. 


The  Pctrine  Claims.  A  Critical  Inquiry  by  RiCHARD  FRED- 
ERICK LiTTLEDALE,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.  London :  vSociety 
for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge.  New  York  :  E.  & 
J.  B.  Young  &  Co.     1889. 

THE  REV.  DR.  LITTLEDALE  is  already  the  author 
of  by  far  the  best  popular  treatise  to  put  into  the 
hands  of  Church  people  who  may  find  themselves  befogged 
by  any  ad  captandinn  arguments  on  the  part  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  His  Plain  Reasons  Against  Joining  the  Church  of 
Rome — the  work  to  which  we  refer — is  compendious  in  form, 
lively  and  interesting  in  style,  very  moderate  in  price,  and 
unanswerable  in  its  statement  of  facts.  The  attempt  of 
Father  Ryder,  even  with  the  subterranean  assistance  of 
Cardinal  Newman  himself,  to  answer  this  little  book,  was  a 
total  failure ;  though  the  attempt  was  a  solid  recognition  of 
the  importance  of  the  work,  which  it  thus  did  not  dispose 
of.  A  few  pages  were  all  that  Dr.  Littledale  needed  in 
reply. 

His  present  work,  on  The  Petrine  Claims,  is  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent scope.  Instead  of  comparing  the  Anglican  and 
Roman  positions,  he  now  does  what  our  controversialists 
have  seldom  done.  Instead  of  simply  defending  our  own 
position,  Dr.  Littledale  boldly  carries  the  war  into  Africa, 
and  shows  that  the  Romanists  themselves,  on  the  require- 
ments of  their  own  Canon  Law,  have  not  a  leg  to  stand  on  ; 
that  their  whole  succession  came  to  an  end  four  hundred 
years  ago,  and  that  there  can  be  found  no  possible  mode  of 
starting  it  afresh  !  And  he  not  only  asserts  this,  but  he 
proves  it,  by  the  Roman  Canon  Law  itself,  by  Roman  his- 
torians, and  by  the  Bulls  of  Roman  Popes. 

But  this,  though  the  conclusion,  is  by  no  means  all.  He 
traces  the  question  fully  from  the  beginning,  showing  that 
the  case  is  deficient  in  every  point  required  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  valid  ''  privilege,"  according  to  the  Roman  Canon 


388 


The  Pe trine  Claims. 


Law  itself:  and  that  there  have  been  quite  a  number  of 
breaks — even  if  there  had  been  anything-  to  begin  with — 
besides  the  last,  and  longest,  and  most  complete  of  all. 

This  work  has  been  so  admirably  and  so  thoroughly 
done,  that  we  should  be  glad  to  give  a  condensed  statement 
of  the  whole  process :  but  our  space  will  hardly  permit  of 
that. 

In  the  "  Preface,"  Dr.  Littledale  points  out  that  this  book 
''does  not  touch  the  theological  side  of  the  matters  in 
debate,  save  incidentally  and  subordinately ;  and  is  solely 
occupied  with  the  legal  aspect  of  the  claim  laid  by  the 
Papacy  to  sovereign  authority  over  the  Church  Universal." 
He  goes  on  to  say: 

For  this  claim  is  much  more  than  a  mere  speculative  theory,  or  even  than 
a  dogmatic  principle  ;  it  is  a  legal  maxim  of  the  w^idest  range  and  the  most 
detailed  application,  directly  affecting  every  matter  and  every  act  within  the 
spiritual  domain,  whether  belonging  to  the  sphere  of  faith  or  to  that  of  dis- 
cipline. The  questions  of  the  authority  of  Creeds  and  Councils,  of  the  com- 
petence of  all  ecclesiastical  officers,  of  the  valid  administration  of  Sacra- 
ments, of  the  legitimacy  of  forms  of  devotion,  of  the  terms  of  Communion 
requisite  to  Church  membership,  and  all  cognate  ones,  are  inextricably 
bound  up  with  this  single  proposition,  which  is  thus  of  supreme  legal 
importance. 

This  being  so,  and  the  'Privilege  of  Peter'  being  alleged  as  conveying  no 
mere  honorary  Primacy,  but  as  concentrating  the  whole  government  and 
jurisdiction  over  the  Church  Universal  in  the  person  of  the  Pope  for  the 
time  being,  it  is  removed  from  the  sphere  of  dogma  and  from  that  of  specu- 
lation into  that  of  practical  and  legal  action,  and  therefore  must  be  exam- 
ined and  tested  by  legal  methods,  in  order  to  ascertain  its  credentials. 

The  claim  usuall}^  takes  two  forms  :  that  it  is  based  on  and  warranted  by 
a  Divine  Charter,  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  that  it  has  been  in  fact 
enjoyed  and  exercised,  with  the  full  recognition  and  approval  of  ancient 
Christendom,  for  a  period  so  long  and  unbroken  as  to  add  a  title  by  prescrip- 
tion to  reinforce  that  conferred  by  the  original  charter. 

The  following  pages  are  exclusively  concerned  with  an  investigation  of 
these  two  theses,  in  their  Scriptural,  conciliar,  and  historical  aspects  ;  and 
\h.^ principles  \2XdL  down  by  the  Roman  Canon  Law  have  been  applied 
throughout  to  guide  the  inquiry  and  determine  the  conclusions  on  purely 
legal  grounds,  as  open  to  less  dispute,  and  admitting  of  less  evasion  than 
the  theological  treatment  of  the  controversy  has  usually  proved. 

We  have  here  quoted  the  ''  Preface "  almost  entire^  as 
giving,  so  clearly  and  succinctly,  the  leading  difference 
between  this  work  on  TJie  Petriiie  Claims,  and  our  usual 
books  of  controversy  against  Rome.     The  issue  is  made 


TJie  CkurcJi  Knnc^v.  ^^o 

more  narrow,  more  definite,  and  more  deeisive  than  in  any 
other  we  know  of. 

The  first  ehapter  is  devoted  to  the  Leg"al  Evidenee  of 
Scripture,  first  setting-  down  the  teaehing  of  the  Couneil 
of  Trent,  and  that  of  the  Vatican,  and  the  Creed  of  Pope 
Pins  IV  about  Holy  Scripture,  the  ''unanimous  consent  of 
the  Fathers,"  and  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope.  As  to  this 
last,  the  author  says  : 

As  the  entire  claim  of  Papal  Infallibility  rests  avowedly  on  asserted  heir- 
ship to  S.  Peter,  and  right  of  succession  to  all  his  privileges,  while  no  alle- 
gation is  made  that  those  privileges  have  been  specifically  re-granted  to  any 
Pope  since  his  time,  much  less  increased,  developed,  and  amplified  in  any 
manner,  it  follows  that  the  Pope  can  claim  no  more  than  is  plainly  discover- 
able as  conferred  upon  and  exercised  by  S.  Peter  himself  But  the  whole  of 
the  evidence  now  extant  upon  this  head  is  confined  to  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  few  meagre  and  uncertain  notices  of  S.  Peter's  life  which 
have  come  to  us  from  uninspired  writers,  do  not  touch  this  question  of  his 
primacy,  jurisdiction,  and  transmission  of  his  powers  at  all.  Consequently, 
the  Gospel,  Acts  and  Epistles  contain  not  only  his  whole  charter  of  privi- 
lege, but  our  whole  means  of  ascertaining  what  he  actually  enjoyed  and 
exercised  in  virtue  of  that  charter. 

It  is  indisputable,  therefore,  that  the  Roman  claims — 
if  they  have  any  firm  basis — must  establish  clearly  and 
expressly,  not  by  mere  possible  implication  or  inference, 
the  following-  points  : 

(i)  That  S.  Peter  was  given,  by  Christ,  a  primacy,  not  of  honor  and 
rank  alone,  but  of  direct  and  sovereign  jurisdiction  over  all  the  othet 
Apostles. 

(2)  That  this  primac}^  was  not  limited  to  S.  Peter's  person  only  for 
his  lifetime,  but  was  conferred  on  him  with  power  to  bequeath  it  to  his 
successors. 

And  now  we  come  to  the  bed-rock  of  the  peculiarity  of 
this  entire  book — the  testing  of  the  "Privilege  of  Peter." 
It  is  the  phrase,  not  of  our  theologians,  but  of  the  Roman 
advocates  themselves — their  favorite  phrase.  Dr.  Little- 
dale  contends  that  "an  exclusively  Roman  claim"  cannot 
reasonably  or  even  plausibly  refuse  to  be  tested  by  the 
Roman  Canon  Lazv  itself  \  as,  for  instance,  by  pleading  that  the 
Petrine  Privilege,  being  older  than  the  Canon  Law,  cannot 
be  subject  to  its  rules,  for,  as  he  says,  the  question  is  as  to 
the  devolution  of  this  privilege  to  the  reigning  Pope,  whose 
claim  to  it  must  be  subject  to  the  tests  of  contemporary 


390 


The  Petrine  Claims. 


Canon  Law ;  especially  since  the  claim  itself  was  not  formu- 
lated definitely  till  the  fifth  century.     He  says  also  : 

The  reason  why  the  proof  of  it  needs  to  be  express  and  clear,  is  because 
privilege,  being  a  private  exception  to  the  usual  public  caurse  of  law,  either 
in  the  form  of  exemption  from  some  burden  generally  imposed,  or  of  enjoy- 
ment of  some  benefit  generally  withheld,  is  essentially  an  invidious  thing, 
and.  require?,  fuller  proof  than  any  other  right  before  it  can  be  allowed  as 
valid.  Consequently,  the  Roman  Canon  Law  has  laid  down  the  following 
broad  rules  (among-  others)  to  govern  all  cases  of  the  sort  : 

Let  the  reader  now  mark  well  these  Seven  Roman  Rules, 
which  apply  to  all  cases  of  Privilege : 

( 1 )  The  authoritative  document  containing  the  privilege  must  be  produced. 
\^Decret.  Greg.  IX. '\ 

(2)  Its  wording  must  be  certain  and  manifest,  not  obscure  or  doubtful. 
IDecret.  Greg.  IX.'\ 

(3)  It  must  be  construed  in  the  most  strict  and  literal  sense.  \_Reg. 
furis.;  Fagnan.  de  Past,  et Prcslat.;  Zypcsus  de  Privil.  Consult.'\ 

(4)  If  personal,  it  follows  the  person  [not  the  oflBice];  audit  dies  with  the 
person  named  in  it.      \_Bo7iiface  VIII.~\ 

(5)  It  may  not  be  extended  to  any  other  person,  because  of  identity  or 
similarity  of  reason,  unless  such  extension  be  expressly  named  in  it.  \_Decret. 
Greg.  IX. 1 

(6)  It  may  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  deny,  interfere  with,  or  encroach 
upon  the  rights  and  privileges  of  another.     \_Decret.    Greg.    IX.  ] 

(7)  It  is  forfeited  by  any  excess  or  abuse  in  its  exercise.       \_Decret.  ii,  xi, 

To  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  Roman  controversy,  the 
tremendously  destructive  range  of  these  Seven  Rules,  taken 
from  the  Roman  Canon  Law,  is  manifest  at  the  first  sight. 
They  sweep  the  whole  Roman  fabric  out  of  sight,  like  a 
house  of  cards.  And  this  destructive  sweeping  is  done 
with  their  own  broom  ! 

Dr.  Littledale  then  quotes  in  full  the  three  chief  pas- 
sages of  Holy  Scripture  relied  upon  by  Roman  writers  in 
proof  of  the  Privilege  of  Peter:  ''Thou  art  Peter"  etc., 
"  When  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren,"  and 
"Feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  sheep,"  showing  how  utterly 
they  fail  to  comply  with  the  Seven  Rules,  and  giving  fur- 
ther evidence  besides  of  the  impossibility  of  the  Roman 
interpretation  being  the  right  one.  In  connection  with  the 
"Feed  my  sheep,"  Dr.  Littledale  alludes  to  S.  Peter's  ques- 
tion,   almost    immediately  after,  about   S.   John:    "Lord, 


TJic  CJiurcJi  Rcvieiv.  -?gi 

and    what    shall  this    man    do?"    with  onr  LoRi/s    reply, 
"  What  is  that  to  thee?"  and  adds  : 

It  is  obvious  that  if  vS.  Peter  had  rcceivcfl  jurisdiction  over  S.  John  only 
a  few  minutes  ])efore,  his  question  was  perfectly  legitimate  and  reasonaljle, 
and  merited  a  reply,  as  being  his  concern,  because  affecting  one  for  whom 
he  had  just  ])een  made  responsible.  But  the  answer  he  actually  receives  can 
denote  nothing  short  of  S.  John's  entire  independence,  and  the  restriction 
of  vS.  Peter's  own  commission  to  attending  to  his  own  specific  and  limited 
share  of  Apostolic  work,  with  no  right  of  control  over  S.  John. 

In  commenting  on  the  foundation  on  which  the  Church 
is  built,  it  seems  to  us  that  Dr.  Littledale  might  have  made 
his  position  still  stronger.  He  says,  truly  enough,  that 
**  even  if  we  take  S.  Peter  to  be  the  rock,  it  appears  that 
even  this  title  does  not  stand  alone  in  such  sort  as  to  con- 
stitute  a  gift  of  sovereign  authority.  For  this  same  attri- 
bute of  being  foundations  of  the  Church  is  in  two  other 
places  ascribed  to  the  Apostles  generally,  once  by  S.  Paul : 
'  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners, 
but  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of 
God  ;  and  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles 
and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  comer- 
stone;  in  Whom  all  the  building  fitly  framed  together 
groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord  "  {^Eph.  ii,  19-21] ; 
and  again  by  S.  John :  '  And  the  wall  of  the  city  had 
twelve  foundations,  and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve 
Apostles  of  the  Lamb'  \Rcv.  xxi,  14];  where,  moreover," 
says  Dr.  Littledale,  *'  it  is  not  unworthy  of  notice,  that  the 
first  stone,  a  jasper,  is  much  inferior  in  beauty  and  value 
to  some  of  the  remainder,  as  the  sapphire,  emerald,  and 
chrysolite  which  severally  form  the  second,  fourth,  and 
seventh  foundations."     \Rev.  xxi,  19-20.] 

This  word  "foundation"  is  used  in  two  very  different 
senses,  which  must  be  carefully  distinguished.  One  is,  the 
great  bed-rock,  the  Deity  of  the  Son  of  GoD: — **  Other  foun- 
dation can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus 
Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  forever."  The 
whole  Church,  the  House  of  God,  the  living  Temple,  is 
built  upon  that  Rock.  The  other  sense  is,  not  that  Rock 
itself,  but  the  first  part  of  tJie  wall  that  is  built  upon  that 
Rock.     It  is  in  tJiis  sense  that  we  read  of  the  Church  as 


^^^  The  Pc trine  Claims, 

being-  "built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets,"  and,  as  above,  of,  the  "twelve  foundations  "  in 
wh*ich  are  "  the  names  of  the  twelve  Apostles  of  the  Lamb." 
The  former  sense  gives  us  the  Deity  of  the  Son  of  God, 
which  S.  Peter  had  just  confessed :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  GoD."  And  this  was  the  Rock  of 
Deity  on  which  the  whole  Church  was  to  be  builded.  But 
where  do  we  find  the  humanity  of  Christ  in  this  great 
work  ?  As  Man,  he  is  the  corner-stone,  the  head-stone  of 
the  corner,  the  first  stone  laid  in  the  foundation  walL  This 
is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  language  of  S.  Paul,  who, 
after  mentioning  that  we  are  "built  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,"  immediately  adds  :  "  Jesus 
Christ  Himself  heing  the  chief  corner-stone;'  namely,  of  that 
same  foundation  wall.  So  that  His  Deity  is  the  foundation 
of  bed-rock  on  which  the  whole  foundation  rests  :  and  His 
Humanity  is  the  "chief  corner-stone"  of  the  wall  built 
upon  that  Rock. 

This  then  would  make  \\iQ  jasper,  which  is  the  first  stone 
of  the  twelve  foundations,  to  signify,  not  S.  Peter,  but 
Christ  Himself.  It  may  not  be  so  beautiful  or  so  costly  as 
some  of  the  other  stones  mentioned.  It  was  said  of  Him : 
"  He  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness  ;  and  when  we  shall  see 
Him,  there  is  no  beauty  that  we  should  desire  Him."  But 
jasper  is  of  the  color  of  blood — the  blood  of  His  Atone- 
ment. And  it  is  the  jeweller's  touchstone,  by  which  the 
true  quality  of  the  precious  metals  is  tested.  Moreover,  we 
find  the  statement,  just  before  the  enumeration  of  the  twelve 
foundations,  that  the  entire  wall,  resting  upon  the  twelve 
foundations,  was  of  this  same  'faspcr:''  "And  he  meas- 
ured the  wall  thereof  an  hundred  and  forty  and  four  cubits, 
according  to  the  measure  of  a  man,  that  is,  of  the  angel.  And 
the  building  of  the  wall  of  it  was  of  jasper T  Now  we  have 
heard  of  Romanists  claiming  from  this  that  communion 
with  the  See  of  Peter  was  necessary ;  and  it  would  look  like 
it,  if  the  "jasper"  signifies  S.  Peter.  But  if  the  jasper  is 
Christ,  the  understanding  of  the  whole  is  much  easier: 
for  every  baptised  person  is  surely  made  thereby  a  "  mem- 
ber of  Christ,"  and  therefore  a  part  of  the  jasper  wall. 


The  CI  lurch  Review.  ^q>7 

But  we  never  heard  of  anybody  being-  made  a  "member 
of  vS.  Peter." 

One  thinu;-  more.  In  the  opening-  of  the  fourth  ehapter 
of  the  Revelation  we  read  :  "  And  immediately  I  was  in 
the  vSpirit ;  and  behold,  a  throne  was  set  in  Heaven,  and 
One  sat  on  the  throne.  And  he  that  sat  was  to  look  upon 
like  a  jasper  and  a  sardine  stone.  And  round  about  the 
throne  were  the  four  and  twenty  elders  sitting-,  elothed  in 
white,  and  on  their  heads  crowns  of  g-old.  And  before  the 
throne  were  the  seven  lamps  of  fire  burning-,  which  are  the 
Seven  Spirits  of  God.  And  before  the  throne  was  the  sea 
of  g-lass,  like  unto  crystal.  And  the  four  living-  creatures, 
each  of  them  with  six  wings,  and  full  of  eyes  within,  rest 
not  day  and  night,  saying:  Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God 
Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come!"  Will  any 
one  dare  to  say  that  all  this  proves  that  5.  Peter  was  upon 
that  throne,  because  the  jasper  means  S.  Peter?  Even 
papal  blasphemy  will  hardly  go  as  far  as  that,  although 
Pius  IX  did  assume  to  himself  the  words,  *'I  am  the  Way, 
the  Truth,  and  the  Life." 

To  go  back  now  to  the  beautiful  words  of  S.  Paul.  He 
says  that  we  are  ''built  upon  th.Q  foundation  of  the  Apostles 
and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone :"  and  then  he  goes  straight  on:  "In  Whom" — that 
is,  in  Jesus  Christ,  not  in  S.  Peter— in  Christ,  "  all  the 
building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  unto  an  holy  temple 
in  the  Lord."  This  covers  the  great  bulk  of  the  jasper 
wall.  All  the  building  is  "fitly  framed  together  "in  Christ 
— not  in  S.  Peter.  It  "groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the 
Lord" — not  in  S.  Peter.  Holy  Scripture  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  itself.  But  the  Roman  interpretation  of  these 
texts  puts  them  in  irreconcilable  contradiction  with  similar 
expressions  everywhere  else  in  the  Bible. 

In  the  full  discussion  of  the  crucial  text,  "Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  my  Church,"  Dr. 
Littledale  is  peculiarly  strong  and  clear.  Cardinal  Bellar- 
mine  was  the  author  of  an  ingenious  argument  in  favor  of 
Rome.  He  assumed  that  our  Lord  was  talking  Syriac;  and 
assured  us  that  in  Syriac  there  was  only  one  word  to  repre- 


^qA  TJie  Petrine  Claims. 

sent  the  Greek  Petros  (Peter)  and  P^/r^'(a  rock).  So  that 
when  our  Lord  said  to  Peter:  ''Thou  art  Kiplia,  and  upon 
this  Kipha  I  will  build  my  Church,"  there  could  be  no  doubt 
that  he  meant  what  the  Romanists  would  like  to  have  him 
mean.  This  ingenious  guess  is  unanswerably  met  by  Dr. 
Littledalo  thus: 

The  reply  is  direct  and  conclusive,  that  both  the  Hebrew  Cepha  and 
the  Peshitta  Syriac  Kipha,  when  they  mean  rock  or  stone,  are  of  the 
feminine  gender,  which  Cephas  or  Peter,  as  a  masculine  noun  denoting  a 
man's  name,  certainly  is  not,  either  in  Syriac  or  Greek  ;  and  in  the  ancient 
Syriac  version  of  this  very  passage,  S.  Matt,  xvi,  i8  (doubtless  the  most 
trustworthy  gloss  obtainable),  the  feminine  pronoun  is  found  united  with 
the  second  Cepha. 

Our  Roman  friends  will  therefore  be  compelled  to  aban- 
don Cardinal  Bellarmine's  ingenious  guess,  unless  they  are 
prepared  to  assert  that  S.  Peter  was  a  woman,  and  that  Pope 
Joan  is  the  only  legitimate  successor  of  S.  Peter  on  record! 
Yet  Dr.  Dollinger  has  proved  that  Pope  Joan  is  a 
myth! 

In  considering  [page  58]  whether  the '' Babylon "  men- 
tioned at  the  close  of  S.  Peter's  first  Epistle  is  the  geo- 
graphical Babylon  on  the  Euphrates— a  great  stronghold  of 
the  Jews  at  that  time — or  is  used  mystically  for  ''  Rome," 
one  consideration  is  omitted,  which  has  always  seemed  to 
us  conclusive  against  the  Roman  hypothesis.  In  Holy 
Scripture,  whenever  a  number  of  different  nations,  coun- 
tries or  provinces  is  mentioned,  the  order  is,  to  begin  with 
that  which  is  geographically  nearest  to  the  writer  at  his 
time  of  writing,  and  to  end  with  the  more  remote.  This 
order  is  the  natural  order,  and  it  is  never  reversed.  In  S. 
Peter's  Epistle,  at  the  opening,  he  addresses  it  "to  the 
strangers  scattered  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia, 
Asia,  and  Bithynia,"  which  is  the  natural  order  to  one 
writing  from  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates,  for  Pontus  is  the 
nearest  to  that  Babylon;  and  Asia  (the  proconsular  province 
of  that  name,  which  contained  all  the  ''Seven  Churches  of 
Asia"  mentioned  by  S.  John  in  the  Apocalypse,  and  was  at 
the  western  end  of  what  we  call  Asia  Minor)  and  Bithynia, 
were  the  most  remote  from  Babylon,  and  therefore  are  men- 
tioned last. 


The  C/in-^c/i  Ri'7'ic7u.  ^qc 

The  chapter  on  the  *' Lci^al  Evidence  of  vScripture"  ends 
thus  : 

So  far,  then,  as  the  Papal  claim  is  alleged  to  be  of  Divine  Privilege,  given 
by  revelation,  the  Scriptures,  treated  as  the  chief  document  in  evidence  of 
claim,  fail  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  Roman  Canon  I^aw  ;  for  (i)  they 
afford  no  testimony  whatever  as  to  the  annexation  of  privilege  to  the  Roman 
See,  or  its  transmission  from  vS.  Peter  to  any  of  his  successors  ;  (2)  the  evi- 
dence as  to  his  own  primacy  is  obscurely  and  enigmatically  worded  ;  (3)  so 
far  as  its  wording  does  go,  it  is  a  personal,  not  an  official,  grant,  and  thus 
dies  with  the  original  grantee  ;  (4)  if  continued  in  the  Ultramontane  sense, 
it  encroaches  on  S.  Paul's  privileges,  which  are  more  clearly  worded. 

Wherever  the  proof  may  be  found,  therefore,  it  is  certainly  not  in  the 
Scriptures. 

The  next  point  taken  tip  is  the  *'  Leg-al  Evidence  of  Lit- 
urgies and  Fathers." 

In  the  Liturgies,  there  is  found  much  that,  directly  and 
indirectly,  destroys  the  Roman  claim.     For  instance : 

In  the  Liturgy  of  S.James,  or  norm  of  Palestine,  we  find: 
"For  the  stablishing  of  Thy  Holy  Catholic  Church,  which 
Thoii  hast  founded  on  the  rock  of  the  faith,  that  the  gates  of 
hell  may  not  prevail  against  it:"  which  is  not  exactly  the 
same  as  the  Roman  idea  that  the  Church  was  founded  on 
S.  Peter,  And  we  also  find  supplication  made  ''  Especi- 
ally for  the  glorious  Zion,  tJie  Mother  of  all  tJie  Churches^' 
which  is  rather  different  from  the  idea  that  Rome  is  the 
>Iother  and  Mistress  of  all  the  Churches. 

In  the  Liturgy  of  S.  Mark,  the  first  place  in  the  commem- 
oration of  ecclesiastical  persons,  is  assigned  to  the  Pope  or 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (not  Rome)  who  is  described  in  one 
passage  as  "  pre-ordained  to  rule  over  Thy  Holy,  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church  :  "  but  not  one  word  about  the  Pope 
of  Rome ! 

But  the  strongest  of  all  is  the  Roman  Liturgy  itself, 
which,  in  the  Collect  for  the  Vigils  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul 
runs  thus : 

Grant,  we  beseech  Thee,  Almighty  God,  that  thou  wouldst  not  suffer  us, 
whom  Thou  hast  established  upo7i  the  rock  of  the  Apostolic  confession,  to  be 
shaken  by  any  disturbances,"  etc. 

Even  the  Council  of  Trent  itself,  in  its  solemn  decree 
upon  the  Symbol  of  Faith,  speaks  thus,  after  a  long  pre- 
amble : 


2q6  The  Pe trine  Claims. 

Wherefore  it  (the  Council)  judged  that  the  symbol  of  the  Faith,  which 
the  Holy  Roman  Church  uses,  should  be  set  forth  in^  the  full  wording 
whereby  it  is  read  in  all  the  Churches,  as  that  principle  in  which  all  who 
confess  the  faith  of  Christ  must  needs  agree,  and  as  the  firm  and  only 
foundation,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail,  which  is  of  this 
sort  :  "  I  believe  in  oneGoD,"  etc. 

Now,  seeing  that  one  clause  of  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius 
IV  binds  all  who  accept  it,  to  receive  all  the  "  apostolic 
and  ecclesiastical  traditions,  and  other  observances  and 
constitutions  of  the  same  (holy  Roman)  Church ;  and 
another  binds  him  to  the  definitions  of  the  Councils,  and 
chiefly  that  of  Trent :  it  follows  that  no  Romanist  is  free  to 
hold  that  S.  Peter  was  ''the  rocky  He  must — under  pain  of 
anathema — believe  that  the  faith^  or  the  Creed,  is  the  ''Rock" 
against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail ! 

The  summing  up  of  the  Liturgical  Evidence  is  as 
follows : 

The  Liturgical  Kvidence  is  thus  shown  to  be  either  positively  against 
the  Petrine  Claims,  or  negatively  incapable  of  being  cited  in  their  favor, 
although  it  is  quite  certain  that,  if  any  such  view  of  S.  Peter's  peculiar  rank 
as  Head  of  the  Church  and  Vicar  of  Christ  had  prevailed  as  unquestionably 
did  prevail  touching  S.  John  Baptist's  exceptional  position  as  herald  and 
forerunner  of  Christ,  we  should  find  abundant  and  conclusive  proof  of 
it  in  the  Liturgies. 

In  passing  from  the  Liturgies  to  the  Fathers  in  general, 
Dr.  Littledale  confines  himself  mainly  to  citations  from 
those  who  are  recognized  as  "  Doctors  of  the  Church,"  whose' 
authority  is  not  open  to  criticism  from  Roman  Catholics : 
and  he  reminds  us — not  for  the  first  time — j:hat  "nothing 
short  of  the  unanimons  consent  of  the  Fathers  may  lawfully 
be  followed  by  any  Roman  Catholic  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture  " — so  says  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  And  in 
his  summing  up  of  this  branch  of  the  evidence,  he  shows 
that  there  is  not  merely  no  "unanimous  consent"  of  the 
Fathers  in  favor  of  Peter  being  the  Rock,  but  there  is  a 
powerful  preponderance  of  adverse  testimony.  Only  seven- 
teen are  for  the  Roman  view,  against  forty-four  who  take 
the  opposite,  besides  eigJit  others  who  take  all  the  Apostles 
to  be  the  Rock:  while  there  is  not  one,  of  the  whole  of  them, 
who  adds  anything  to  connect  the  text  with  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  as  successor  or  heir  of  S.  Peter! 


The  Chiirck  Kcvicw.  ^.QJ 

As  to  another  of  the  three  ehief  Roman  texts:  *' when 
thou  art  converted,  streng-then  thy  brethren,"  Dr.  Littledale 
tells  us,  that  of  tzvcnty  patristic  citations  made  by  Bellarmine 
in  favor  of  his  view,  all  are  quoted  as  from  Popes,  and 
eigJiteen  of  the  twenty  are  from  the  False  Decretals  ! 

We  cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  a  long-  extract  closing- 
the  Scriptural  and  patristic  part  of  the  examination.  But 
then  it  is  so  clear  and  good,  and  the  illustrations  from 
modern  usage  are  so  apt ! 

Thus  an  examination  of  the  glosses  of  the  Fathers  on  the  three  texts 
alleged  for  the  Petriue  Privilege  results  in  one  of  two  issues.  Either  there 
was  no  such  privilege,  as  distinguished  from  the  joint  powers  of  the  Apostol- 
ate,  conferred  upon  S.  Peter  at  all ;  or  else — and  this  is  the  better  way — his 
special  privilege  was  limited  to  preaching  the  first  Pentecostal  sermon,  and 
afterwards  converting  Cornelius — events  which  are  absolutely  incapable  of 
repetition  :  even  God  Himself  (if  it  be  lawful  to  say  so)  not  being  able  to 
recall  the  past,  so  that  no  one  else,  after  S.  Peter  had  once  done  these  two 
things,  could  be  the  first  to  teach  Jews  or  Gentiles  ;  just  as  no  Pope  can 
follow  S.  Peter  in  being  first  to  confess  Christ.  No  other  distinction  is  named 
by  the  ancient  Fathers,  is  claimed  by  S.  Peter  himself  \^Acts  xv,  7],  or  is 
discoverable  in  Holy  Writ.  And,  consequently,  if  this  be  the  privilege  of 
Peter,  it  did  not  merely  die  with  him,  but  was  possible  for  even  himself  to 
exercise  not  more  than  twice  in  his  lifetime,  so  that  is  absolutely  incom- 
municable and  intransmissible,  and  incapable  of  serving  as  a  precedent  for 
any  claim  whatsoever  based  on  alleged  succession  to  his  authority  and 
primacy.  If  it  could  be  strained  to  mean  anything  it  would  be  that  each 
Pope  must  needs  start  as  a  missionary  pioneer  to  some  country  or  nation 
which  had  not  yet  received  the  Gospel.  But  no  Pope  has  ever  done  so. 
With  this  collapse  of  the  alleged  evidence,  the  whole  case  for  the  Divine 
character  of  the  Roman  privilege  is  really  gone,  and  no  mind  trained  in  the 
investigation  of  testimony,  and  free  from  overpowering  bias,  can  do  other 
than  dismiss  it. 

But  what  about  the  high-sounding,  complimentary  titles 
that  are  given  to  S.  Peter  in  many  ancient  writings,  which, 
are  said  to  imply  some  authority  over  the  other  Apostles? 
Is  he  not  styled  sometimes — especially  from  the  fourth, 
century,  and  by  Eastern  writers — "prince,"  "head,"  "presi- 
dent," "captain,"  and  the  like?  Do  these  prove  nothing? 
Hear  the  reply : 

Now  what  these  epithets  (none  of  which,  by-the-bye,  is  found  until 
the  fourth  century)  prove,  is  the  high  estimation  in  w^hichthe  ancient  Church 
heldS.  Peter,  and  the  fact  that  it  believed  him  to  enjoy  some  priority  amongst 
the  Apostles.  They  would  be  important  evidence  against  an}'  attempt  to 
maintain  that,  owing  to  S.  Peter's  fall  and  denial,  he  had,  in  the  belief  0/ 


nqS  The  Pcirine  Claims. 

early  Christians,  forfeited  his  office  irreparably  (as  A  strict  Novatian  might- 
have  taught),   and  had   been  looked    on    with  a   suspicion    extending   not 
merely  to  his  rank,  but  to  his  teaching,  such  as  we  know  to  have  existed 
against  S.  Paul. 

What  they  do  not  prove,  nor  even  seem  to  prove,  is  the  Divine  grant  of 
supreme  jurisdiction.  For  they  are  not  authoritative  titles,  either  found  in 
Holy  Scripture,  or  conferred  by  conciliar  decree.  The  fact  that  nothing  in 
the  smallest  degree  resembling  even  the  least  exalted  of  them  is  discoverable 
in  the  New  Testament  deprives  them  of  the  mark  of  revelation  ;  the  fact  that 
they  are  not  common  to  the  whole  Church,  leaves  them  without  that  of  uni- 
versal consent.  They  bestow  nothing,  and  they  define  nothing.  But  what 
we  are  in  search  of  is  a/z  express  bestowal  of  exceptional  privilege ,  a.s  divinely 
revealed  and  clearly  defined. 

The  matter  may  be  illustrated  thus  :  The  title  of  Great  or  Grand  Duke, 
in  modem  Europe,  means  one  of  two  things,  either  sovereign  authority,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Grand  Dukes  of  Baden,  Saxe-Weimar,  Oldenburg,  Hesse,  and 
the  two  Mecklenburgs,  or  else  membership  of  the  Russian  Imperial  family. 
But  the  celebrated  Duke  of  Wellington  was  and  is  known  as  the  Great  Duke, 
and  is  frequently  so  described  in  English  literature,  notably  in  the  Laureate's 
funeral  ode.  Let  us  suppose  the  case  of  a  remote  successor  of  his  in  the 
dukedom  claiming  this  epithet  as  hereditary,  and  as  conferring  sovereign 
power,  imperial  rank,  or  even  precedence,  over  all  other  English  Dukes. 
How  would  it  be  treated  ?  Not  by  a  denial  of  the  fact  that  the  epithet  was 
applied  to  the  first  Duke  of  Wellington,  nor  yet  by  an  attempt  to  explain 
away  the  epithet  itself  as  a  mere  piece  of  rhetoric — rather  admitting  its  entire 
fitness— but  by  examining  the  original  patent  of  the  dukedom,  in  order  to 
ascertain  if  a  clause  embodying  this  particular  distinction  were  part  of  it. 
And,  on  its  absence  being  certified,  it  would  be  at  once  ruled  that,  however 
deserved  the  epithet  might  be,  it  was  not  conferred  by  any  authority  capable 
of  bestowing  either  civil  power  or  social  precedence,  and  must  therefore  be 
regarded  as  a  mere  personal  token  of  popular  admiration,  conferring  no 
rights  whatever  on  its  subject.  Nor  would  the  case  for  the  claim  to  sovereign 
rank  be  mended  by  advancing  proof  that  the  first  Duke  of  Wellington  was 
Prime  Minister  of  the  Crown  for  part  of  his  life,  and  Commander-in-Chief 
for  a  much  longer  period.  For  it  would  have  to  be  shown,  in  the  first  place, 
that  these  posts  connoted  irresponsibility  to  any  superior  ;  and  in  the  next, 
that  the  patents  which  bestowed  them  made  them  hereditary,  and  not  merely 
personal.  But  in  S.  Peter's  case,  we  have  the  original  Divine  patent,  in  which 
no  clause  of  superiority  or  transmissibility  occurs,  and  no  expressions  of 
individual  human  respect  can  read  an  additional  title,  article  or  section, 
into  it. 

In  the  second  place,  the  great  majority  of  these  epithets  occur  in  docu- 
ments of  the  Eastern  Church,  which  has  never  at  any  time  admitted  the 
Roman  claims  of  supremacy,  and  which  therefore  obviously  puts  no  such 
interpretation  on  its  own  language.  The  Western  titles  of  S.  Peter  are  fewer, 
and  far  less  imposing. 

And  thirdly,  not  only  are  equally  strong  phrases  used  concerning  S.  John, 
and  yet  more  forcible  ones  concerning  S.   James,  but  nearly  every  one  of 


The  CliurcJi  Review.  ^gg 

these  special  ones  is  applied  to  S.  Paul  as  well  as  to  S.  Peter  ;  so  that  even  in 
the  modern  Roman  Church  they  are  grouped  together  as  '  Princes  of  the 
Apostles.'  So,  too,  when  the  full  heraldic  titles  of  an  Ivn;4ish  Duke  are  set 
forth,  he  is  described  as  the  High,  Puissant,  and  most  Noble  I'rince — 
words  which  scarcely  seem  to  allow  of  rivalry,  but  which  are  common  to 
every  Peer  of  the  same  grade  ;  while  all  Dukes  have  to  yield  precedence  to  a 
mere  Baron  who  happens  to  be  Lord  Chancellor,  President  of  the  Council, 
or  Lord  Privy  Seal. 

In  a  note,  Dr.  Littledale  enumerates  some  of  the  sound- 
ing- titles  given  by  the  Fathers  to  other  Apostles  than 
S.  Peter — titles  about  which  our  Roman  controversialists 
are  singularly  silent,  while  they  pick  out  everything  of  the 
sort  that  they  can  find  about  S.  Peter.  For  instance,  S. 
Chrysostom  speaks  of  the  ''  pillar  of  all  the  CJiurcJies  through- 
out the  7wr/^,  who  hath  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven." 
If  this  had  been  said  about  S.  Peter,  we  should  never  hear 
the  last  of  it,  as  a  proof  of  the  universal  sovereignty  claimed 
for  S.  Peter.  But  as  S.  Chrysostom  uses  these  words 
about  5*.  John,  the  case  is  totally  changed,  and  these  strong 
words  mean — nothing  at  all.  So,  again,  the  same  eloquent 
Saint  speaks  of  another  Apostle  as  "the  type  of  the  world," 
"the  light  of  the  Churches,"  "the  basis  of  the  faith,"  "  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth;"  which  would  mean  full 
Ultramontanism  if  they  were  said  of  5.  Peter ;  but  as  they 
are  only  said  of  S.  Paul,  they  go  for  nothing.  S.  James, 
too,  is  called  "bishop  of  bishops,"  in  another  place,  "prince 
of  bishops,"  in  yet  another,  "bishop  of  the  Apostles,"  and 
again,  "chief  captain  of  the  New  Jerusalem,"  "leader  of  the 
priests,"  "  prince  (exarch)  of  the  Apostles,"  "  summit  of  the 
heights,"  etc.,  all  of  which  would  be  splendid  jewels  in  the 
tiara  of  S.  Peter;  but,  being  only  said  of  S.  James,  they  all 
go  for  nothing. 

The  investigation  of  the  three  most  ancient  and  import- 
ant sources  of  testimony.  Holy  Scripture,  early  Liturgies, 
and  the  comments  of  the  Fathers  on  the  Petrine  texts  in  the 
Gospels,  having  thus  resulted  in  a  clear  failure  to  establish 
the  "Petrine  Claims,"  our  author  next  turns  to  the  "  Legal 
Evidence  of  Conciliar  Decrees."  He  begins  by  quoting  the 
clause  from  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV : 

I  likewise  undoubtingly  receive  and  profess  all  other  things  delivered, 
defined  and  declared  by  the  Sacred  Canons  and  General  Councils,  and  especi- 


^oo  The  Petrine  Claims. 

ally  by  the  Holy  Council  of  Trent ;  and  I  condemn,-  reject  and  anathematize 
all  things  contrary  thereto. 

To  this  he  adds  the  famous  profession  of  S.  Gregory  the 
Great,  embodied  in  the  Canon  Law,  in  which  he  receives 
the  first  four  General  Councils  as  he  does  the  Four  Gospels. 
And  also,  the  solemn  profession  made  by  every  Pope  at  his 
elevation,  which  is  this : 

The  eight  Holy  General  Councils— that  is,  Nice  first,  Constantinople 
second,  Ephesus  third,  Chalcedon  fourth,  Constantinople  fifth  and  sixth, 
Nice  seventh,  and  Constantinople  eighth— I  profess  with  mouth  and  heart  to 
be  kept  unaltered  in  a  single  tittle  \_usgue  ad  unum  apicem  immutilata 
servari\,  to  account  them  worthy  of  equal  honor  and  veneration,  to  follow, 
in  every  respect,  whatsoever  they  promulgated  or  decreed,  and  to  condemn 
whatsoever  they  condemned. 

The  Apostolic  Canons,  the  most  ancient  of  all,  are  of 
course  silent  about  the  Papacy.     They  say  : 

It  is  fit  that  the  Bishops  of  each  nation  should  recognize  their  Primate, 

and  treat  him  as  Head,  and  do  nothing  of  moment    without    his    assent 

But  neither  let  him  [the   Primate]  do   aught  without  the 

assent  of  all ;  for  so  shall  there  be  concord,    and    God   shall  be  glorified 

through  the  Lord  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 

This  is  the  rule  throughout  the  entire  Anglican  Com- 
munion. We  cannot  allude  here  to  all  the  Councils  men- 
tioned by  Dr.  Littledale :  but  there  is  a  very  important 
passage  in  regard  to  the  famous  third  Canon  of  the  Council 
of  Sardica,  which  the  Popes  of  Rome,  on  four  different 
occasions,  in  four  different  places,  and  at  four  different 
times,  tried  to  palm  off  as  a  Canon  of  the  Great  Council  of 
Nice.  Every  time  the  fraud  was  exposed  :  yet  with  brazen 
front  the  attempt  was  renewed,  whenever  a  difference  of 
place  or  circumstance  held  out  a  fresh  chance  of  success. 
That  third  Canon  runs  thus  : 

If  in  any  province  a  Bishop  have  a  dispute  with  a  brother  Bishop,  let 
neither  of  them  call  in  a  Bishop  from  another  province  as  arbiter  ;  but  if 
any  Bishop  be  cast  in  any  suit,  and  think  his  case  good,  so  that  the  judg- 
ment ought  to  be  reviewed,  if  it  please  you,  let  us  honor  the  memory  of  S. 
Peter  the  Apostle,  and  let  those  who  have  tried  the  cause  write  to  Julius, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  that  if  needful  he  may  provide  for  a  rehearing  of  the  cause 
by  the  Bishops  nearest  to  the  province,  and  send  arbiters  ;  or  if  it  cannot  be 
established  that  the  matter  needs  reversal,  then  what  has  been  decided  is  not 
to  be  rescinded,  but  the  existing  state  of  things  is  to  be  confirmed. 

Besides  this  Canon  3,  their  Canon  4  provides  that  a 
Bishop,  deposed  by  a  local  Synod  and  appealing  to  Rome, 


TJic  CJiurcJi  Rcviciv.  ^Oi 

shall  not  have  his  sec  filled  up  till  the  Pope  has  confirmed 
the  sentence  ;  and  their  Canon  5  empowers  the  Pope  either 
to  commit  the  rehearing"  to  the  Bishops  of  the  neighboring 
Province,  or  to  send  a  legate  of  his  own  to  rehear  the 
cause.  Now  this  Council  of  Sardica  was  held  in  the  year 
347,  and  yet  these  canons  were  never  heard  of  until  the 
year  419 — scvcnty-tivo  years  after,  txtiH  then  the  Pope  tried 
to  palm  them  off  as  Nicene  !  Even  if  genuine,  they  died 
with  Pope  Julius,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Roman 
Canon  Law  concerning  privilege:  ''If  personal,  it  follows 
the  person  (not  the  office) ;  and  it  dies  with  the  person 
named  in  it."  Julius  is  the  person  named,  and  no  one  else. 
Also,  "  It  may  not  be  extended  to  any  other  person,  because 
of  identity  or  similarity  of  reason,  unless  such  extension  be 
expressly  named  in  it."  There  is  no  extension  expressly 
named  in  the  Canon,  nor  even  the  least  hint  of  such  a  thing. 
Therefore  the  Canon  died  with  Pope  Julius,  more  than  1,500 
years  ago.  But  Dr.  Littledale  has  something  yet  more 
damaging  to  say  about  these  famous  Canons  : 

No  satisfactor)'-  evidence  exists  for  the  authejiticity  of  these  Canons,  and 
there  is  much  reason  for  suspecting  them  to  be  a  sheer  fabrication  at  Rome. 
For  no  hint  of  their  existence  occurs  till  they  were  falsely  alleged  in  419  as 
Nicene  Canons  by  the  Papal  Legate  at  Carthage,  while  the  African  Bishops 
contented  themselves  with  disproving  that  one  fiction,  but  evidently  knew 
nothing  else  whatever  about  them,  not  being  able  to  assign  them  even  to 
Sardica,  obviously  because  they  had  never  heard  of  them  before  ;  whereas 
the  invariable  rule  of  the  time  was  to  send  the  Acts  and  Canons  of  Synods  of 
more  than  provincial  character  round  to  all  the  great  Churches  for  approval ; 
so  that  the  Sardican  Canons,  if  genuine  at  all,  must  have  been  known  at  Car- 
thage, at  any  rate  by  424,  after  attention  there  had  been  drawn  to  them  five 
years  previously,  and  a  consequent  search  made,  supposing  no  earlier  infor- 
mation to  have  been  accessible,  as  there  must  have  been,  since  Aratus  of 
Carthage  was  at  Sardica  ;  and  would  have  brought  back  any  Canons. 

What  is  more,  there  is  entire  silence  on  this  head  in  the  Acts  of  Constan- 
tinople in  381,  and  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  albeit  both  dealing  with  the  ques- 
tion of  appellate  jurisdiction  ;  nor  does  S.  Athanasius  refer  to  these  Canons. 
And  though  S.  Augustine's  silence  may  be  explained  away  on  the  ground 
that  he  mixes  up  the  Council  of  Sardica  with  the  seceding  Arian  Synod  of 
Philippopolis,  no  such  excuse  accounts  for  the  equal  silence  of  SS.  Basil  and 
Epiphanius,  and  of  the  three  great  ecclesiastical  historians  of  the  time,  Soc- 
rates, Sozomen,  and  Theodoret,  none  of  whom  know  of  any  Sardican  docu- 
ment except  the  Synodical  epistle.  Seeing  that  the  Canons,  if  genuine, 
altered  for  the  West  the  system  of  appeals  which  had  prevailed  in  the  Church 

26 


AQ2  The  Fe trine  Claims. 

up  to  that  time,  based  as  it  was  on  the  rule  of  the  civil  code  that  all  cases 
should  be  ended  where  they  originated,  their  legal  and  historical  importance 
is  such  that  this  unbroken  silence  is  nearly  unaccountable.  Nor  is  any 
example  known  of  their  having  been  avowedly  acted  on  anywhere  in  the 
West — precisely  where  the  canons  of  the  Council  must  have  been  known 
and  in  many  provincial  archives,  whereas  they  are  cited  only  in  Papal 
missives  to  Churches  ivhose  Bishops  lucre  not  at  Sardica.  And  as  their 
Nicene  character  was  alleged  for  th.e  fourth  time  so  late  as  484  by  Felix  II, 
in  his  dispute  with  Acacius  of  Constantinople,  it  is  obvious  that  this 
persistence  in  one  falsehood  makes  the  presence  of  another  more  likely. 
No  one  at  Rome  could  have  honestly  believed  them  to  be  Nicene,  because 
they  expressly  name  Pope  Julius,  who  did  not  begin  to  sit  till  337,  twelve 
years  after  the  Council  of  Nice  (a  few  Latin  MSS.  have  Silvester  here,  an 
obviously  fraudulent  correction).  The  policy  of  urging  them  as  Canons 
of  a  great  Council  like  Sardica,  when  it  proved  impossible  to  gain  credit 
for  them  as  Nicene,  is  so  evident  that  its  not  being  adopted  prompts  a 
suspicion  that  they  were  well  known  at  Rome  not  to  be_  decrees  of  any 
Council  whatever,  so  that  any  strict  inquiry  must  tend  to  the  same 
result,  and  that  being  so,  it  was  more  politic  to  keep  up  the  Nicene 
claim.  No  Greek  text  is  known  earlier  than  the  sixth  century,  and  a  very 
suspicious  circumstance  marks  the  three  oldest  Latin  texts,  the  Prisca,  that 
of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  and  the  true  Isidore.  These,  as  a  rule,  give  inde- 
pendent and  various  translations  of  all  Greek  Canons,  but  they  agree 
verbally  for  the  so-called  Sardican  Canoiis.  The  inference  is,  that  there 
was  never  a  Greek  original  at  all,  but  only  a  Latin  forgery.  If  so,  the  whole 
fabric  of  Papal  appeals  falls,  for  it  has  no  other  basis.  Indeed,  the  non- 
Sardican  origin  of  these  Canons  has  been  strongly  asserted  of  late  by  a 
learned  Italian  theologian,  Aloysius  Vincenzi,  in  his  treatise,  De  Hebrcsorum 
et  Christiafiorum  Sacra  Monarchia,  Vatican  Press,  1875,  who  places  them 
considerably  later,  and  inclines  to  think  them  African. 

The  well-known  case  of  Apiarius,  an  immoral  African 
priest,  who  persuaded  Pope  Zosimus  to  back  him  up  in  an 
attempt  to  overrule  the  African  decision  against  him,  is 
thoroughly  discussed  by  Dr.  Littledale.  It  was  in  this 
contest  that  the  Pope  tried  to  pass  off  the  so-called  Sardican 
Canons  as  Nicene.  The  African  Bishops  at  once  challenged 
their  authenticity,  and  sent  special  messengers  all  the  way 
to  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Constantinople,  and  all  the 
attested  copies  in  these  cities  demonstrated  the  fraud  of 
the  Pope.  They  enacted  a  new  Canon  at  once,  forbidding 
all  appeals  beyond  sea,  or  to  any  authority  save  African 
Councils  and  VrvcudX^^,  under  pain  of  excoimniinication  through- 
out Africa.     And,  finally. 

The  Council  sent  a  synodical  letter  to  Pope  Boniface  by  two  legates,  com- 
plaining of  his  conduct  in  reinstating  Apiarius,  disputing  the  genuineness  of 


Tlic  ChurcJi  Rcviciv.  aq^ 

the  Cnnons  allc^^ofl  by  T'anstinns  (the  P.ishop  whom  the  Pope  had  sent  on 
this  business),  and  tellint?  the  Pope  in  the  plainest  lanj^uaj^e  that  nothing 
shouhl  make  them  tolerate  nis  conduct,  or  suffer  such  insolence  ilyphum 
snpcrbicr")  at  the  hand  of  his  emissaries — a  protest  virtually  aimed  at  himself, 
who  had  commissioned  and  despatched  them.  One  of  the  signatories  of 
this  epistle  was  S.  Augustine. 

Just  think  of  S.  Augustine — that  great  saint — signing 
a  letter  like  this  addressed  to  the  Pope  of  Rome  of  his  day! 
And  very  probably  he  was  the  writer  of  it  as  well. 

But  the  Pope  stuck  to  his  miserable  Apiarius,  who  had 
been  a  second  time  deposed  for  immorality.  It  was  Celestine  I 
who  undertook  to  rehabilitate  him  this  time,  and  to  send 
him  back  to  Africa,  with  the  same  Bishop  Faustinus,  to 
obtain  his  reinstatement  there.  But  his  guilt  was  proved 
at  the  Council  by  his  own  confession,  and  his  degradation 
confirmed : 

Hereupon  the  Fathers  wrote  to  Pope  Celestine,  telling  him  that  they  had 
ascertained  that  the  alleged  Nicene  Canons  were  not  of  that  Council  at  all  ; 
that  the  Pope  had  transgressed  the  genuine  Nicene  Canons  by  interfering  in 
another  province  ;  and  that  they  could  find  no  authority  for  his  undertaking 
to  send  legates  to  them  or  any  other  Churches,  so  that  they  begged  him  to 
refrain  from  doing  so  in  future,  for  fear  the  Church  should  suffer  through 
pride  and  ambition  :  and  added  that  they  were  quite  competent,  with  the  aid 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  manage  their  own  affairs  on  the  spot,  better  than  he, 
with  less  local  knowledge,  could  do  for  them  at  Rome,  ending  by  telling  him 
that  they  had  had  quite  enough  of  Faustinus,  and  wanted  no  more  of  him. 

That  was  the  outspoken  and  manly  way  in  which  the 
Church  of  North  Africa  resisted  and  repudiated  the  med- 
dling of  the  Pope,  when  he  first  began  to  do  business  in 
that  line.  Would  that  all  National  Churches  had  had  the 
courage  to  keep  it  up  in  the  same  strain ! 

The  third  General  Council  met  at  Ephesus  only  seven 
years  later,  in  431,  and  seems  to  give  us  a  distinct  echo  of 
this  African  business  in  its  Canon  VIII,  which  enacts  that 
no  Bishop  shall  invade  any  province  which  was  not  from 
the  beginning  under  his  jurisdiction  or  that  of  his  prede- 
cessors : 

And  if  any  should  so  occupy  one,  or  forcibly  subject  it  to  himself,  let  him 
make  personal  restitution,  lest  the  statutes  of  the  Fathers  should  be  violated, 
and  lest  the  pride  of  power  should  creep  in  under  the  pretext  of  a  sacred  office, 
and  thus  we  might  unknowingly  and  gradually  lose  that  freedom  which 
Jesus  Christ  our  I^ord  and  Saviour  of  all  men  obtained  for  us  with  His 
precious  blood,  and  bestowed  upon  us. 


^Q.  TJie  Petrine  Claims. 

The  next  General  Council,  of  Chalcedon,  in  451 — only 
twenty  years  later — gives  furtliBr  and  unanswerable  proof 
of  the  same  great  contest.  The  Tome  of  Leo — after  full 
and  close  examination — was  accepted  as  the  correct  state- 
ment of  the  doctrinal  issue  then  pending.  But  as  to  dis- 
ciplinary authority,  the  celebrated  Canon  XXVIII  was 
the  heaviest  blow  the  rising  Roman  ambition  had  yet 
received : 

The  Fathers  with  good  reason  bestowed  precedency  on  the  chair  of  Old 
Rome,  because  it  was  the  imperial  city,  and  the  150  GoD-beloved  Bishops 
[the  Council  of  Constantinople],  moved  by  the  same  view,  conferred  equal 
pi'ecedcnce  on  the  most  holy  throne  of  New  Rome,  rightly  judging  that  the 
city  honored  with  the  Empire  and  the  Senate  should  enjoy  the  same  preced- 
ence as  Rome,  the  old  seat  of  Empire,  and  should  be  magnified  as  it  was  in 
ecclesiastical  matters  also,  being  second  after  it. 

To  make  this  still  stronger,  the  Canon  went  on  to  confer 
upon  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  the  right  of  ordaining 
all  the  metropolitans  of  Asia,  Pontus,  Thrace,  and  the 
Bishops  in  barbarous  regions — a  larger  domain  of  territory 
and  population  than  then  belonged  to  the  Patriarchate 
of  Rome.  Now  when  this  Canon  was  first  read,  the  Roman 
legates — the  only  members  present  from  the  West — rose 
and  left  the  assembly.  The  next  day,  when  they  returned 
and  found  that,  without  a  word  of  objection  from  anybody, 
it  had  been  u7ianimously  adopted,  they  demanded  another 
session  for  its  abrogation,  asserting  that  the  Bishops  had 
been  forced  by  imperial  pressure  into  that  unanimity,  and 
producing  a  forged  version  of  the  sixth  Canon  of  Nicsea, 
in  which  the  words  ''  The  Roman  See  hath  always  had  the 
primacy  "  had  been  interpolated.  But  they  failed  utterly. 
Their  forged  interpolation  was  immediately  exposed.  Their 
charge  of  imperial  pressure  was  scouted.  The  Canon  stood, 
and  has  stood  ever  since.  The  then  Pope,  Leo  the  Great, 
resisted  this  Canon  always,  and  pretended  to  nullify  it,  not 
on  the  ground  that  it  contradicted  the  privilege  of  Peter — 
mark  that ! — but  only  because  it  conferred  upon  Constanti- 
nople the  second  place,  till  then  given  to  Alexandria,  and 
interfered  besides  with  the  rights  of  many  metropolitans. 
But  after  long  resistance,  Rome  herself  has,  in  fact,  swal- 
lowed her  disappointment;  and  in  the  ///r^^-/<?/^  recognition 


TJic  Church  Rcviczu.  ^05 

of  the  General  Coimeils,  makes  no  exception  f)f  the 
XXVIII  Canon  of  Chalcedon.  Every  Pope  professes 
that  the  acts  of  the  Oeneral  Coiincils  are  **  with  mouth  and 
heart  to  be  kept  loinltcrcd  in  a  single  tittle^'  that  he  will 
"account  them  worthy  of  equal  honor  and  veneration," 
and  will  "  follow,  in  every  respect,  whatsoever  they  promul- 
gated or  decreed,  and  condemn  whatsoever  they  con- 
demned." On  this  most  important  point,  Dr  Littledale 
well  says : 

Either  the  Council,  in  holding  that  the  Roman  primacy  is  a  mere  human 
and  ecclesiastical  dignity,  conferred  by  the  Church,  and  not  a  Divine  and 
inalienable  privilege,  was  wrong  on  the  point  of  fact,  or  it  v^^as  right.  If 
it  was  zuro7ig  (apart  from  the  objection  that  then  the  whole  fabric  of 
Conciliar  authority  falls,  as  no  Council  has  ever  been  more  authoritative 
than  Chalcedon,  or  more  definitely  acknowledged  by  the  Roman  Church 
itself),  then,  since  its  dogmatic  decrees  are  allowed  to  be  the  standard  of 
orthodoxy,  and  yet  as  it  must  have  erred  in  dogma  if  the  Roman  primacy 
be  matter  oi  faith,  the  conclusion  is,  that  the  said  primacy  is  at  best 
not  matter  oi  dogmatic  faith,  but  only  oi  historical  fact ;  and  so  the  Canon 
supplies  proof  that  the  Church  of  the  fifth  century  did  7iot  hold  the  Papal 
claim  to  be  of  Divine  origin  or  theological  obligation.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  Council  was  right  on  the  point  of  fact,  there  is  nothing  left  to  be  said 
in  favor  of  even  the  historical  character  of  the  alleged  Petrine  Privilege, 

Dr.  Littledale  then  tests  the  principle  at  issue,  by  look- 
ing at  the  position  of  the  other  great  Sees.  '*  If  the  allega- 
tion of  the  Council  be  true,"  he  says,  "that  the  civil 
position  of  Rome  was  the  sole  cause  of  its  ecclesiastical 
primacy,  then  the  same  principle  will  be  found  to  affect  the 
precedence  of  other  great  Sees.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
Ultramontane  contention  be  true,  then  the  rival  principle 
will  be  seen  at  work,  and  the  Sees  will  be  found  to  rank 
according  to  the  dignity  of  their  founders  or  the  august 
character  of  their  traditions."  He  then  shows  that  Jerusalem, 
the  Mother  of  all  the  Churches,  when  sunk  into  civil  insig- 
nificance, was  only  a  suffragan  See  of  Caesarea,  and  when 
afterwards  elevated  to  a  Patriarchate  it  was  the  last,  and 
not  the  first,  in  rank,  though  founded  by  Christ  Himself 
and  the  whole  College  of  the  Apostles.  Then  Alexandria 
— which  was  the  second  city  in  the  Empire  for  size  and 
importance — was  not  founded  by  any  Apostle  at  all,  but  only 
by   S.   Mark   the    Evangelist.     Yet    it    always    outranked 


4o6  The  Petrine  Claims. 

Antioch,  the  third  largest  city  in  the  Empire,  though  S.  Paul 
had  labored  there,  and  S.  Peter  was  said  to  have  been 
Bishop  there  for  seven  years  before  he  translated  his  Episco- 
pal chair  to  Rome.  Ephesus,  though  Apostolic  by  at  least 
two  claims,  through  S.  Paul  and  S.  John,  never  rose  to 
higher  rank  than  that  of  exarchate  or  primacy.  If,  therefore, 
the  greatness  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  to  be  traced  to  the 
greatness  of  the  founder  of  the  See,  it  is  in  contradiction 
to  the  principle  which  prevailed  everywhere  else  through- 
out all  Christendom :  just  as,  if  we  are  to  interpret  the 
*'rock"  to  mean  S.  Peter,  we  must  cojitradict  the  invariable 
use  of  that  word  in  all  the  rest  of  the  Bible,  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  New.     Dr.  Littledale  sums  up  the  evidence  : 

Thus  the  evidence  of  Church  history  amply  justifies  the  Fathers  of 
Chalcedon,  and  proves  that  they  were  right  in  alleging  that  the  political 
supremac}^  of  Rome  as  the  capital  of  the  Empire,  making  it  the  natural 
centre  of  all  business  affairs,  and  the  chief  resort  of  travellers  from  all 
quarters,  made  it  also  the  most  convenient  centre  for  that  great  missionary 
organisation,  whose  battle  was  emphatically  fought  in  the  large  towns,  as 
the  now  significant  word  '  pagan,  '  once  meaning  *  rustic  '  or  '  villager, ' 
teaches  us.  And  down  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century  all  the  extant 
evidence  shows  that  the  primacy  was  held  to  reside  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
not  in  its  Bishop,  who  derived  his  importance  from  the  See,  not  vice- 
versa.  S.  Clement,  for  instance,  writes  to  the  Corinthians  in  the  name  of 
the  Roman  Church,  not  in  his  own. 

But  we  must  shorten  sail,  or  we  shall  never  get  through 
this  masterly  and  most  interesting  work.  We  have  thus 
far  touched  upon  only  lOO  pages  out  of  more  than  350. 
And  the  further  we  go,  the  keener  is  the  historical  analysis, 
the  more  trenchant  the  criticism,  the  more  unanswerable 
the  refutation  of  Roman  assumptions  and  deliberate  frauds. 
The  many  doctrinal  somersaults  of  Vigilius,  and  the 
palpable  and  notorious  heresy  of  Honorius,  are  merci- 
lessly shown  up.  Merely  ''  local  Italian  Synods,"  not  even 
professing  to  be  oecumenical,  are  shown  to  have  deposed 
Popes,  and  these  depositions  have  always  been  counted 
valid.  The  acts  of  the  Councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and 
Basle  are  carefully  stated,  and  at  the  two  former,  the 
deposition  of  existing  Popes  and  the  election  of  Alexan- 
der V  and  Martin  V  are  regarded  as  valid.  Dr.  Little- 
dale  keenly  says : 


The  ChurcJi  Review.  407 

It  is  obvious  that  if  the  '  pnvilctje  of  Peter, '  as  a(Tirmc<l  in  the  Vatican 
Council,  be  a  Divinely  revealed  verity,  and  the  Pope  be  in  truth  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  his  inferiors  could  not  possibly  sit  in  judgment  upon  him,  nor 
could  the  body,  without  committinj^  suicide,  cut  off  its  ozvn  head.  Therefore, 
if  the  attitude  taken  up  by  the  Councils  were  heterodox  and  unjustifiable,  we 
should  find  their  nominees  to  the  Papacy  rejected  as  pretenders,  schismatics 
and  heretics,  and  their  acts  disallowed  as  null  and  void. 

Precisely  so  in  Euglish  history,  the  whole  Parliamentary  annals  of  Ivng- 
land  under  the  Commonwealth  are  now  a  legal  blank,  ....  and  no 
Acts  of  Pai-liament  nor  decisions  of  the  law-courts  between  1641  and  1660  can 
be  cited  as  of  authority,  or  as  having  the  smallest  legal  validity.  But  no  such 
disavowal  of  Pisa  and  Constance  exists  in  ecclesiastical  history,  and  the 
claims  of  Alexander  V  and  Martin  V  to  be  true  Pontiffs  and  successors  of 
S.  Peter  have  never  been  disputed  ;  albeit  their  title  depends  wholly  on  the 
validity  of  the  deposition  of  their  predecessors,  which  created  the  vacancies 
in  their  favor.  Had  there  been  any  such  collapse  of  the  opposition  at  Pisa 
and  Constance  as  that  which  left  Eugenius  IV  ultimately  victor  over  the 
Council  of  Basle,  we  should  have  merely  proof  that  modern  Ultramontanism 
was  not  then  universally  received,  but  none  that  it  was  not  in  the  right,  and 
entitled  to  be  so  received  ;  but  the  triumph  of  Pisa  and  Constance  over  Papal 
resistance  is  decisive  of  the  controversy,  and  refutes  the  Vatican  decrees 
of  1870. 

But,  to  our  extreme  reg-ret,  we  must  altogether  omit 
from  Chapter  IV  to  Chapter  VII,  inclusive,  though  a  most 
interesting  and  important  article  might  be  made  from  them 
alone.  All  the  strong  points  are  brought  out  so  clearly  and 
forcibly,  and  the  underlying /r/«<:z/»/^j  are  set  forth  with  such 
terseness  and  clearness.  One  such  point  we  must  quote, 
however,  before  we  pass  on.  In  quoting  facts  from  history, 
as  bearing  upon  Papal  claims.  Dr.  Littledale  most  justly 
says: 

It  is  to  be  distinctly  remembered,  that  any  negative  examples  are  very 
much  more  to  the  point  than  positive  ones  can  be.  This  proposition  may 
strike  persons  unfamiliar  with  the  rules  of  evidence  as  being  unfair,  for  they 
may  naturally  suppose  that  at  least  equal  weight  should  be  given  to  the  facts 
which  make  in  favor  of  Papal  supremacy,  and  to  those  which  make  against 
it.  That  would  be  perfectly  true  //"the  claim  made  for  the  Popes  were  simply 
that  in  virtue  of  their  office  they  held  the  most  prominent  position  in  the 
early  Church,  and  often  exercised  a  preponderating  influence  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  Occasional  proofs  of  their  being  unable  to  secure  their  ends,  or 
enforce  their  authority,  would  establish  no  more  against  this  view  than  the 
failure  of  many  English  Acts  of  Parliament  to  effect  their  object,  or  to  obtain 
popular  recognition  and  obedience,  establishes  against  the  general  proposi- 
tion that  England  is  habitually  governed  by  laws  enacted  in  and  by  Parlia- 
ment. Yet,  in  truth,  no  dispute  exists  so  far,  and,  were  nothing  further 
demanded  on  behalf  of  the  Popes,  the  controversy  would  die  out  for  want  of 


4o8 


The  Pe trine  Claims, 


materials.  But  the  claim  is  that  of  an  original  and  indefeasible  Divine  right 
oi  direct  sovereignty  and  jurisdiction,  hoih  in  7natters  of  faith  aud  oi  disci- 
pline, e:s.ercised  from  the  first  by  the  Popes,  and  acknowledged  by  the  whole 
Catholic  Church.  Every  instance  which  makes  against  these  pretensions  is  a 
flaw  in  the  case,  and  is  like  o.  gap  in  a  pedigree  by  which  right  of  ownership 
to  a  title  and  estate  is  sought  to  be  established.  And  if  several  such  flaws  and 
gaps  be  discoverable,  they  settle  something  further  :  for  they  not  merely  dis- 
prove the  claim  of  special  privilege,  but  make  it  impossible  to  sustain  the 
Supremacy  as  a  matter  oi  prescription,  and  as  having  thus  such  ancient  aud 
universal  consent  on  its  side  as  to  raise  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of 
primitive  Christendom  having  ranked  it  as  a  Church  ordinance,  equally  with 
Infant  Baptism  and  Sunday  observance,  for  which  no  express  Divine  sanction 
is  recorded.  And  any  evidence  which  tends  to  show  that  the  power  of  the 
Roman  See  did,  in  fact,  become  greater  in  the  lapse  of  time,  and  gradually 
overpower  resistance,  at  once  helps  to  show  its  purely  human  character. 
For  a  Divinely  bestowed  authority  is  always  strongest  at  first,  growing 
weaker  in  popular  regard  as  the  memory  of  the  original  grant-  is  weakened, 
which  the  instances  of  Moses  and  of  the  Apostles  sufficiently  prove  ;  whereas 
a  human  authority,  continually  reinforced,  often  tends  to  grow,  as  the  power 
of  the  French  kings  grew  from  Louis  XI  to  Louis  XIV,  and  as  the  power  of 
the  House  of  Commons  has  grown  in  England,  from  the  Restoration  to  the 
present  day. 

Remembering  this  idea  of  gaps  or  flazvs  in  a  pedigree, 
which  is  exactly  the  one  we  have  to  deal  with,  let  ns  turn 
to  the  chapter  that  closes  this  remarkable  book. 

In  the  idea  of  transmitted  authority,  all  are  familiar 
with  the  maxim  that  no  one  can  convey  to  another  a  power 
which  he  does  not  himself  possess.  In  consecrations  to  the 
Episcopate,  each  of  the  three  or  more  Consecrators  possesses 
that  episcopate  which,  unitedly,  they  give  to  the  one  upon 
whom  they  lay  hands.  Any  one  of  the  three  could  do  it : 
but  for  abundant  security  the  Canons  require  three  at  least, 
so  as  to  have  a  three-fold  cord  of  certainty.  There  is,  thus, 
the  direct  touch  of  conveyance,  between  those  who  have  it, 
and  him  to  whom,  by  that  act,  they  giye  it.  This  is  the 
Divine  plan,  followed  in  the  Apostolic  Church  from  the 
beginning,  and  kept  up  in  all  parts  of  the  Catholic  Church 
to  this  day. 

To  show  how  it  operates,  take,  for  instance,  the  case  of 
any  priest  ordained  by  Bishop  Doane  of  Albany.  He 
himself  was  consecrated  hy  five  other  Bishops.  And  follow- 
ing back  the  consecrations  of  these  five,  and  so  on,  up  to 
the  reception  of  our  Episcopate  from  England,  eighty  years 


Tlic  Cliurcli  Rcviciv.  ^OQ 

before,  it  will  be  found  that  r^'r/-/ j:)ricst  ordained  by  Bishop 
Doane  represents,  in  his  own  person,  no  less  tlian  sixty-right 
Bishops  of  our  Ameriean  vSuccession,  besides  the  orig-inal 
English  prelates  from  whom  we  derived  it,  and  several 
others  who  have  taken  part  in  subsequent  Amuriean  con- 
secrations. The  true  idea  of  the  Apostolic  vSuccession  ir, 
thus,  not  a  siinple  chain  of  single  links,  where  the  break- 
ing- of  a  single  Hnk  anywhere  destroys  the  continuity  of 
the  chain :  but  it  is  a  complete  network^  from  which  anv  one 
strand  would  never  be  missed.  The  destruction  of  the 
Apostolic  vSuccession  is  simply  a  moral  impossibility. 

The  idea  of  the  Papal  succession  is  the  very  reverse 
of  all  this,  and  is  an  absurdity  in  itself.  As  a  channel  for 
the  perpetuation  of  transmitted  authority,  it  is  an  impossi- 
bility, for  no  Pope  ever  gives  it  t©  his  successor.  No  two 
successive  links  of  the  Papal  chain  ever  interpenetrate. 
Sometimes  weeks,  or  months,  or  even  y^ears  have  intervened 
between  the  death  of  one  Pope  and  the  election  of  his 
successor.  And  when  the  successor  is  chosen,  from  whence 
does  he  get  his  power  as  Pope?  Fromx  his  predecessor? 
No  !  His  predecessor  did  not  even  knozu  who  should  succeed 
him  ;  never  said  a  word  to  him  about  it ;  gave  him  no  power, 
no  symbol  of  investiture,  no  symptom  even  of  anything. 
Does  the  new  Pope  then  get  the  power  from  the  Cardinals 
who  elected  him  ?  No!  iov  they  never  had  it.  Only  the  pre- 
vious Pope  had  it,  and  he  died  without  giving  it  to  anybody. 
Where  then  does  the  new  Pope  get  it  ?  The  links  of  the  Papal 
chain  of  transmission,  it  is  thus  seen,  never  interpenetrate. 
They  can  never  even  get  close  enough  to  one  another  to 
touch  on  the  outside  !  There  is  a  total  solution  of  continuity 
on  the  death  of  every  Pope,  and  there  is  no  possible  way  to 
help  it ! 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Papal  theory  is  beset  by  radical 
difficulties  of  its  own,  which  would  wreck  it  completely 
without  any  comparison  with  a  better  system.  We  all 
understand  what  is  meant  by  the  possession  of  power  de 
facto,  and  consider  that  sufficient  in  temporal  affairs,  even 
if  it  be  not  at  the  same  time  de  jure.  But  *'it  is  an  axiom 
of  Latin  Theology  and  Canon  Law  that  /^'/^/^ZtcyO/'/ possession 


rio  ^^^^  Pe trine  Claims, 

of  the  Papacy  confers  710  rights  whatever,  and  that  all  acts 
done  by  one  who  is  Pope  de  facto  with  Dut  being  also  Pope 
de  jure,  are  7111II  and  void!'  And  "this  nullity  extends,  of 
course,  to  the  institution  of  all  beneficiaries  within  the 
area  of  the  quasi-Pope's  domestic  jurisdiction,  and  to  the 
creations  of  Cardinals.  That  is  to  say,  a  false  Pope  may 
seriously  affect  the  competency  of  the  electoral  body  which 
will  have  to  choose  his  successor."  For  Cardinals  "  are  not 
specially  ordained,  as  Bishops  and  Priests  are."  These 
latter  may  be  possessed  of  perfectly  valid  orders,  and  yet 
have  no  legal  right  to  a  particular  benefice  or  See.  But  no 
Cardinal  has  any  shadow  of  claim  to  the  red  hat,  or  to  be 
one  of  the  electors  of  a  Pope,  unless  the  Pope  who  named 
him  had  full  povuers.  And  to  make  confusion  worse  con- 
founded, ''another  maxim  of  Latin  Theology  is,  that  any 
donbt  as  to  the  rightful  tenure  of  the  Papal  Chair  by  any 
claimant,  is  to  be  ruled  against  him,  not  for  him,  as  is  laid 
down  expressly  by  Bellarmine,  who  says  :  'A  doubtful  Pope 
is  accounted  no  Pope.*  This  includes  all  cases  of  disputed 
elections,  whenever  there  is  not  fill  proof  oi  the  valid  election 
of  the  particular  claimant  who  ultimately  prevailed."  And 
there  were  no  less  than  tlnrty-nine  anti-Popes  before  the 
Great  Schism :  a  fact  which  proves,  as  Dr.  Littledale  well 
says,  "  that  no  Church  is  so  lacking  in  the  note  of  Unity  as 
the  local  Roman  Church.  It  has  been  the  typical  home  of 
schism."  And  yet  we  are  told  that  submission  to  the  abso- 
lute despotism  of  Rome  is  the  only  thing  that  can  preserve 
the  unity  of  the  Church  ! 

But  we  have  not  yet  reached  the  end.  There  are  laid 
down  for  us,  in  the  Roman  Canon  Law,  four  cases  of 
absolute  7iullity,  admitting  of  no  dispute.  They  are  these : 
(i)  ''Intrusion  by  some  external  influence,  without  any 
election  by  the  constituency."  (2)  "Election  by  those  only 
who  are  not  qualified  to  elect."  (3)  "  Simony T  (4)  "  Ante- 
cedent personal  ineligibility  of  certain  definite  kinds,  such 
as  bastardy."  And,  as  if  all  this  were  not  enough,  there  are 
cases  of  ''  highly  probable  nullity^'  such  as  those  of  heresy, 
whether  manifest  or  secret,  and  whether  previous  to,  or 
after,  election  to  the  Papacy:  and  these  are  "highly  proba- 


The  Church  Rfvicw.  j^jj 

ble  only,  and  not  absolute,  because,  while  there  is  a  consensus 
of  theologians  and  canonists  on  the  subject,  there  is  no 
express  decree  of  Canon  Law  to  the  same  effect." 

As  we  cannot  give  full  attention  to  all  these  points,  Ict- 
us look  for  a  moment  to  what  is  said  of  Simony. 

Dr.  Littledalc  gives  a  chain  of  authorities,  from  the 
Apostolic  Canons  down  to  Pope  Julius  II,  including  Canons 
of  General  Councils,  ail  agreeing  that  simony  is  fatally 
destructive  of  Holy  Orders.  The  Apostolic  Canons  declare 
that  "  if  any  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon  obtain  this  rank  by 
money,  let  him  be  deposed,  and  his  ordainer  also,  and  be 
altogether  cut  off  from  communion,  as  vSimon  Magus  was 
by  Peter."  The  General  Council  of  Chalcedon  ordains  the 
same,  and  adds  that  *'  if  any  one  act  as  go-between  in  such 
scandalous  and  illegal  transactions,  if  he  be  a  cleric,  let  him 
be  degraded  from  his  rank."  A  Roman  Synod,  under 
Gregory  VII,  declares  that  ''  All  crimes  are  accounted  as 
nothing  in  comparison  with  the  simoniacal  heresy. 
Ordinations  performed  for  money.  ...  we  decide  to  be 
null  and  void."  Pope  Leo  IV  will  not  admit  that  even 
penitence  can  avail,  but  that  the  deposition  of  simoniacs 
is  "perpetual  and  irreparable."  And,  lastly,  Pope  Julius  II, 
in  the  Bull  Cum  tam  divino,  "  pronounces  all  simoniacal  elec- 
tions to  the  Papacy  void,  and  incapable  of  being  validated 
by  any  recognition  accorded  to  the  Pope  as  chosen.  And 
Gammarus,  Auditor  of  the  Rota,  in  his  commentary  on 
this  Bull,  alleges  it  to  be  so  worded  as  to  be  retrospective 
in  effect,  fully  voiding  all  sich  former  elections." 

And  now  to  the  working  of  this  principle.  Omitting 
here  all  the  numerous  and  more  ancient  cases.  Dr.  Littledale 
tells  us  that — 

Innocent  VIII  was  simoniacally  elected  in  1484,  and  his  next  successor, 
the  infamous  Cardinal  Roderic  de  Borgia,  was  elected  in  the  conclave  of  1492 
by  a  majority  of  twenty-two  out  of  the  then  twenty- seven  Cardinals,  whose 
votes  had  been  purchased  by  Cardinal  Ascanio  Sforza,  as  recorded  by  Von 
Kggs,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian  of  the  Cardinals,  in  his  Poitificiiim 
Doctum  [p.  251]  and  Purpura  Doda,  in  Vita  Card.  Ascan.  Sforza:,  iii,  251. 
As  Pope  Alexander  VI,  Borgia  6'/>^v//y  sold  the  Cardi?mlate  \tseU  to  the  highest 
purchasers,  so  that  both  his  own  popedom  and  the  membership  of  the  Sacred 
College  were  all  void  by  reason  of  Simony.     But  Julius  II  was  elected  in  1503 


.  j2  The  Petrine  Claims, 

in  a  conclave  of  thirty-seven  Cardinals,  of  whom  twenty-six,  or  rather  over 
tne  two-thirds  necessary  for  a  valid  choice,  were  of  Alexander  VI's  invalid 
creation,  while  the  same  Cardinal  Sforza  is  known  to  have  managed  that 
conclave  also,  in  the  same  simoniacal  fashion  as  the  previous  one.  And 
Ivco  X  was  elected  in  1513,  in  a  conclave  consisting  entirely  of  Cardinals 
created  by  either  Alexander  VI  or  Julius  II,  and  therefore  incompetent  to 
elect.  And  Leo  repeated  the  crime  of  Alexander  VI  in  selling  the  Cardinalate  ; 
while,  finally,  Clement  VII  was  simoniacally  elected  in  1523. 

The  electoral  body  was  thus  utterly  vitiated  and  disqualified  by  Canon 
Law,  at  least  so  far  back  as  15 13,  and  no  conceivably  valid  election  of  a  Pope 
has  taken  place  since  that  of  Sixties  IV,  in  1471,  even  if  every  defect  prior  to 
that  date  be  condoned,  and  it  be  conceded  that  the  breaches  in  the  tenth, 
eleventh  and  fifteenth  centuries  were  made  good  somehoYf. 

Dr.  Littledale  pushes  home,  with  the  utmost  boldness, 
the  full  conclusions  from  the  facts  which  he,  has  thus 
demonstrated : 

There  has  not  been  any  retrospective  action  taken  in  regard  to  this  final 
vitiation  by  Simony  ;  and  to  Alexander  VI  belongs  the  responsibility  of 
having  made  any  assertion  of  unbroken  and  canonical  devolution  of  a  Petrine 
Privilege  in  the  line  of  Roman  Pontiffs  impossible  for  afiy  honest  canonist  or 
historian  since  his  time.  And,  consequently,  not  only  have  the  specific 
Divine  privileges  alleged  to  be  attached  to  the  person  and  ofiice  of  the  Roman 
VonW^  all  utterly  failed,  but  the  whole  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  appertaining 
to,  or  derived  from,  the  See  of  Rome,  h.zs  failed  throughout  the  entire  Latin 
obedience.  All  acts  done  by  the  Popes  themselves,  or  requiring  Papal  sanction 
for  validity,  since  1484  (just  thirty-three  years  before  the  outbreak  of  the 
Lutheran  revolt),  have  been  inherently  null  and  void,  because  emanating 
from  usurping  and  illicit  Pontiffs,  every  one  of  whom  has  been  uncanonically 
intruded  into  the  Papal  chair  by  simoniacal  or  merely  titular  electors,  having 
no  legal  claim  to  vote  at  all.  Those  orders  and  sacraments  in  the  Latin 
Church  which  depend  on  the  valid  succession  of  the  dispersive  episcopate 
and  priesthood  may  continue  unimpaired,  but  all  that  is  distinctively  Papal 
died  out  four  centuries  ago,  and  continues  now  as  a  mere  delusive  phantom. 

What  can  possibly  be  urged  on  the  other  side,  is  thus 
unanswerably  dealt  with  by  our  Author : 

The  defence  set  up  on  the  Ultramontane  side,  against  this  proof  that  the 
Papacy  has  ceased  to  exist  as  a  de  jure  institution  is,  that  the  mere  fact  of 
recognition  and  acceptance  of  an  invalidly  elected  Pope  by  the  Roman 
Church  at  large  suffices  to  make  good  all  defects,  and  to  validate  his  position. 
But  this  is  in  the  teeth  of  all  the  legal  facts.  For  (i)  there  is  no  such  provision 
to  be  found  in  the  Canon  Law,  which  could  not  omit  so  important  a  legal 
principle,  did  it  exist ;  (2)  no  opportunity  of  expressing  either  assent  or 
dissent  is  afforded  to  the  dispersive  Roman  Church,  seeing  that  the  election 
in  conclave  is  not  conditional,  but  final,  and  the  result  is  publicly  signified 
at  once,  in  words  denoting  that  the  new  reign  has  begun  ;  (3)  the  absence  of 


T/w  Church  Rroicw.  4 1  3 

any  schism,  or  any  pn1)lic  challciT^e  of  the  title  of  any  one  f 'f  the  thirteen 
intruded  Topes  between  903  and  953  [the  Pornocracy]  is  legally  equivalent 
to  acceptance  of  them  all  by  the  dispersive  Roman  Church,  but  Baronius  is 
mo:.t  precise  in  denying  their  status  ;  an<l'(4)  there  arc  Bulls  of  Julius  II  and 
Paul  IV  which  categorically  contradict  this  assertion,  in  that  they  enact  that 
110  recognition,  homage,  or  obedience,  shown  to  an  invalidly  elected  Pope, 
shall  avail  to  legitimate  his  status,  when  his  disqualification  has  been  either 
simony  or  heresy. 

The  transparent  and  impudent  humbuggery  of  all  this 
may  he  made  plain  by  a  suggestion  which  Dr.  Littledale 
does  not  make.  That  same  Julius  II,  who  issued  so  tre- 
mendous a  Bull  against  a  simoniacal  Pope,  appears  in  the 
table  of  doubtful,  intrusive,  heretical  and  simoniacal  Popes, 
as  owing  his  own  seat  as  Pope  to  that  very  j-Zw^?;^/ which  he 
so  valiantly  denounces  !  And  what  could  be  safer?  He,  of 
course,  knew  that  he  was  stispccted  of  it.  And  the  Bull 
would — to  the  world  at  large — vindicate  him.  And  what 
harm  could  it  do  ?  He,  as  Pope,  had  certainly  no  idea  of 
unseating  himself.  And  when  the  briber  was  so  safe,  there 
was  little  danger  of  the  Cardinals,  who  were  the  bribees, 
making  any  real  trouble  about  it.  So  that  the  Roman  Car- 
dinals, when  that  Bull  was  issued,  must  have  found  it  as 
hard  to  keep  their  countenances  sober,  on  meeting  one 
another,  as  Cicero's  heathen  augurs. 

Dr.  Littledale  says  truly,  that — 

The  remarkable  weakness  of  the  line  of  Papal  succession  can  be  most 
clearly  exhibited  in  a  chronological  table  of  the  flaws  in  legitimate  trans- 
mission of  the  Chair,  which  are  precisely  analogous  to  failures  of  proof  of 
regular  descent,  or  actual  proofs  of  bastardy,  in  a  family  pedigree  on  which 

titles  and  estates  depend It  is  to  be  remembered  that  intrusion 

and  simony  are  absolute  disqualifications,  heresy  an  almost  equal  one,  and 
that  all  questions  of  doubt  ....  are  ruled  against  the  claimant  by 
Bellarmine's  maxim,  *A  doubtful  Pope  is  counted  no  Pope.'  All  persons 
reckoned,  whether  justly  or  unjustly,  as  anti-Popes,  are  excluded  from  the 
tabic  ;  aud  merely  legendary  stories,  such  as  that  of  Pope  Marcellinus's 
apostas}^  and  rigidly  technical  objections,  such  as  apply,  for  instance,  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  Nicolas  I,  and  to  the  election  of  Gelasius  II,  are  omitted  also  ; 
so  as  to  state  the  case  for  the  prosecution  as  moderately  as  possible. 

And  with  all  this  moderation,  the  entire  list  contains  the 
names  of  sixty-five  Popes,  of  whom  no  less  than  thirty  were 
guilty  of  simony  or  intrusion  such  as,  by  Papal  law,  Avould 
render  their  claim  to  be  valid  Popes  utterly  null  and  void. 


AiA  The  Petrine  Claims, 

The  Table  ends  with  Clement  VII,  A.D.  1534,  and  only 
these  words  are  added :  "  No  valid  election  has  been  possible 
since:'     The  explanation  of  this  is  as  follows  : 

The  Electoral  College  of  Cardinals  was  completely  vitiated  by  simony 
under  Alexander  VI ;  and  thus,  even  if  it  could  be  conceded  that  the  Papacy 
was  saved  somehow  through  former  irregular  transmissions,  or  was  validly 
reconstituted  by  the  Council  of  Constance,  there  has  been,  by  Roman 
Canon  Law,  no  de  jure  Pope  since  14S4  at  latest,  consequently  no  de  jure 
Cardinal  created,  and  thus  no  means  exist,  on  Ultramontane  principles,  for 
restoring  the  Petrine  succession. 

We  are  sorely  tempted  to  touch  on  other  salient  points. 
The  question  of  Honorius  is  vigorously  handled  by  Dr. 
Littledale,  but  is  so  familiar  to  all  by  this  time,  that  there 
is  less  lost  in  passing  it  by  once 'more.  The  horrible  Por- 
nocracy  at  Rome  is  another  deadly  blot  on  Roman  history, 
far  worse  than  can  be  found  recorded  of  any  other  See  in 
Christendom.  Dr.  Littledale  thus  outlines  this  dark  and 
dismal  period : 

In  903,  Christopher,  a  priest  of  the  Roman  Church,  rose  against  Pope 
Leo  V,  a  few  weeks  after  his  enthronement,  threw  him  into  prison,  and 
intruded  himself  into  the  Papacy.  He  was  in  his  turn  overthrown  and 
imprisoned  by  Sergius  III,  who  intruded  himself  similarly,  and  whose 
character  is  painted  in  the  blackest  colors  by  the  chroniclers  of  the  time. 
It  is  at  least  certain  that  it  was  under  his  auspices  that  the  infamous  triad  of 
courtesans,  the  two  Theodoras  and  Marozia,  obtained  the  influence  which 
enabled  them  to  dispose  several  times  of  the  Papal  crown.  They,  or  Alberic 
of  Spoleto,  son  of  Marozia,  nominated  to  the  Papacy  Anastatius  III,  Lando, 
John  X,  Leo  VI,  Stephen  VII,  John  XI,  Leo  VII,  Stephen  VIII,  Martin  III, 
Agapetus  II,  and  John  XII,  the  last  of  whom,  a  mere  boy  at  the  time  of  his 
intrusion,  was  deposed  for  various  atrocious  crimes  by  a  Synod  convened 
by  the  Emperor  Otto  I,  in  963.  This  whole  series,  as  Baronius  declares, 
consisted  of  false  Pontiffs,  having  no  right  to  their  office,  either  by  election 
or  by  subsequent  assent  of  the  electors,  each  of  them  eager  to  undo  the 
acts  of  his  predecessors,  and  choosing  persons  of  the  same  evil  stamp  as 
themselves  for  the  Cardinalate  and  other  dignities. 

And  the  language  of  Baronius  himself — the  champion 
Ultramontane  historian  of  the  Church — is  far  more  em- 
phatic than  that  of  Dr.  Littledale : 

AVhat  was  then  the  aspect  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church  ?     How  utterly 

foul,  when  harlots,  at  once  most  powerful  and  most  vile,  bore  rule  at  Rome  ; 

at  whose  will  Sees  were  exchanged,  Bishops  appointed,  and  what  is  awful 

•  and  horrible  to  hear,  their  paramours  were  intruded  as  pseudo-Popes  into 


The  CJiurcJi  Review,  415 

the  vSee  of  Teter,  who  arc  not  set  down  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Roman 
Pontiffs  except  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  dates.  For  who  could  assert 
that  persons  lawlessly  intruded  by  such  courtesans  were  legitimate  Pontiffs? 
There  is  no  mention  anywhere  of  the  clergy  electing  or  subsequently  assent- 
ing. All  the  canons  were  thrust  down  into  silence,  the  decrees  of  Popes 
were  strangled,  the  old  traditions  were  baimed,  the  ancient  customs,  the 
sacred  rites,  and  the  early  usages  in  the  election  of  the  supreme  Pontiff, 
were  completely  annulled.  And  what  sort  of  cardinals,  deacons,  and  priests 
do  you  suppose  were  chosen  l)y  these  monsters  ? 

Dr.  Littledale,  as  a  canonist,  draws  the  following;  most 
serious  conclusion  from  tJic  aduiitted  facts.     It  is,  that — 

If  any  Petrine  succession  or  privilege  ever  existed  in  the  Roman  Church, 
it  was  extinguished  irrecoverably  at  the  close  of  this  period  ;  for  it  extended 
over  j/Vt'/yji^ar^,  during  which  not  one  lawfully-elected  Pope  ascended  the 
Papal  Chair.  None  of  them  could  canonically  appoint  to  any  dignity  or 
benefice  in  the  Roman  Church  ;  many  of  them  are  known  to  have  sold 
them.  Consequently,  it  is  certain  that,  at  the  close  of  the  sixty  years' 
anarchy,  not  one  single  clerical  elector  in  Rome  was  qualified  to  vote,  for  not 
one  could  show  a  just  title  to  his  position  ;  and  the  lay  vote,  even  if  it  was 
given  at  all,  was  invalid  by  itself.  The  election  of  Leo  VIII  or  of  Benedict 
V  (whichever  be  accounted  the  true  Pope),  in  963,  was,  therefore,  void  also  ; 
for  even  if  conducted  in  due  form,  the  clerical  voters  had  no  status.  And  as 
no  act  of  indemnity  was  ever  passed  by  any  authority  whatsoever— leaving 
out  of  account  the  very  difficult  problem  of  deciding  what  authority  w^ould 
have  been  competent  for  the  purpose — the  defect  has  been  incurable.  It  is 
precisely  analogous  to  a  break  of  two  generations  of  established  bastardy  in 
a  pedigree  by  which  it  is  sought  to  make  good  a  claim  to  a  peerage.  Failing 
the  production  of  some  collateral  heir  (impossible  in  the  case  before  us), 
there  is  no  choice  but  to  declare  the  family  honors  extinct.  The  Petrine 
line,  7/ ever  a  reality,  ended  in  the  tenth  cejitury.  The  later  Popes  may  just 
conceivably  have  been  Bishops  of  Rome  in  some  canonical  sense  for  a  few- 
centuries  longer,  .  .  .  but  if  so,  they  had  no  more  connection  with  the 
older  line  than  the  Napoleonic  dynasty  has  with  the  Carolingian  emperors. 

Another  series  of  intruding  Popes,  who  secured  their 
places  through  simony,  is  found  in  the  eleventh  century, 
lasting  thirty-four  years— a  very  serious  break.  The 
"Babylonish  captivity,"  at  Avignon,  is  another  very  grave 
break : 

For  the  Roman  contention  is,  that  S.  Peter,  by  his  twenty-five  years' 
residence  and  death  in  Rome,  and  by  that  alone— as  no  documentary  proof 
exists— transferred  his  primacy  from  Antioch  to  Rome,  his  ultimate  residence 
being  the  sole  nexus  between  the  Universal  Primacy  and  the  local  bishopric. 
They  admit  that  he  might  have  fixed  it  in  any  other  Church  ;  but  that  by  his 
final  residence  in  Rome  he  established  it  forever  there. 


41 6  TJie  Pe trine  Claims, 

Accordingly,  when  the  Popes  went  to  Avignon, '  permanently  resided 
there,  and  died  and  were  buried  there,  they  did  in  regard  to  Rome  precisely 
what  S.  Peter  is  said  to  have  done  in  regard  to  Antioch  :  they  broke  up  the 
Roman  succession,  and  created  a  new  primacy  at  Avignon,  For  residence 
being  an  essential  condition  of  the  Episcopate,  that  condition  failed  utterly 
during  the  Avignon  period,  and  its  resumption  could  not  rehabilitate  the 
succession.  The  Popes  living  in  Avignon  could  no  more  be  considered 
Bishops  of  Rome,  than  S.  Peter  living  in  Rome  could  be  considered  as  still 
Bishop  of  Antioch.  And  Pope  Benedict  XIV  says  :  *  No  one  who  is  not 
Bishop  of  Rome  can  be  styled  successor  of  Peter,  and  for  that  reason  the 
words  of  the  Lord  '  Feed  my  sheep, '  can  never  be  applied  to  him.  .  . 
Furthermore^  by  the  Canons  of  all  the  Councils,  from  Nice  I  to  Trent,  and 
from  that  to  the  Bull  of  Pius  IV  ....  every  Bishop,  even  of  Patri- 
archal rank,  is  compelled  to  a /><?r5^«a/ residence,  under  pain  of  deprivation  ; 
the  Popes,  therefore,  as  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  even  as  Patriarchs,  fall  under 
the  universal  law,  and  the  See  of  Rome  was  ipso  facto  void  during  the 
Avignon  Papacy.' 

Besides  all  these  gaps,  there  is  the  Great  Schism,  when 
there  were  two,  and  sometimes  three  Popes,  each  excom- 
mrinicating  all  the  rest,  and  all  their  adherents — a  woful 
time,  that  paved  the  way  for  the  Reformation,  and  did  more 
to  destroy  the  prestige  of  the  Papacy  than  all  other  causes 
put  together.  But  this,  together  with  much  else,  we  must 
pass  over  here,  commending  the  reader  to  search  it  all  out 
in  Dr.  Littledale's  book.  Notwithstanding  the  self-imposed 
narrowness  of  scope  in  that  book,  it  contains  the  sum  and 
substance  of  the  whole  controversy  in  a  nutshell,  with  a 
masterly  point  and  brevity  and  clearness,  which  are  most 
refreshing.  He  appends  a  valuable  ''Note  on  the  False 
Decretals  " — forgeries  of  which  we  hear  much  said,  but  of 
which  it  is  not  easy  to  get  a  definite  account  such  as  is  here 
given.     This  important  Note  thus  closes : 

So  much  will  suffice  to  exhibit  the  general  tone  and  object  of  the  P'alse 
Decretals,  which  revolutionized  the  polity  of  the  Western  Church,  and 
which  v,-ere  formally  embodied  in  the  Canon  Law  (of  which  they  had  for 
centuries  practically  formed  a  large  effective  factor)  in  respect  of  all  their 
legislative  matter  by  Pope  Gregory  IX,  under  the  editorship  of  S.  Raymond 
de  Pennaforte,  in  1234.  They  are  the  sole  basis  a.ndi  J tisiijication  of  those 
claims  and  exceptional  powers  asserted  by  the  Roman  Chair,  which  culmU 
nated  in  the  Vatican  Decrees  of  1S70. 

We  have  dealt  very  largely  in  extracts  from  Dr.  Little- 
dale  :  and  they  are  the  best  part  of  this  article  Our  only 
object  is  to  point  out  the  solid  merit,  the  singular  strength, 


The  CJiurcJi  Rcviciv, 


4^7 


depth  and  brilliance  of  his  work,  so  as  to  induce  all  t(j  read 
it  for  themselves.  And,  as  our  last  extract,  we  will  g-ivehis 
own  summing--up  of  the  whole  work  done  in  this  admirable 
little  volume  on  the  Petrine  Claims  : 

The  points  successively  raised,  and  (it  is  submitted) />;Vc't'f/,  in  the  fore- 
going inc^uiry,  are  as  follows  : 

I.  That  the  claim  to  teach  and  rule  the  Church  Universal,  as  of  privilege, 
in  virtue  of  a  special  inheritance  from  S.  Peter,  made  on  behalf  of  the  Popes 
of  Rome,  does  not  satisfy  any  one  of  the  seven  conditions  required  by 
Roman  Canon  Law  in  all  cases  of  privilege.     For, 

{a)  No  document  constituting  them  such  heirs,  and  annexing  the  privi- 
lege to  the  inheritance,  is  producible,  or  so  nmch  as  thought  to  have  ever 
existed. 

{d)  The  document  alleged  as  conferring  this  privilege  upon  vS.  Peter  him- 
self is  not  certain  and  manifest  in  wording  for  this  purpose,  but  obscure  and 
enigmatic  ;  so  as  to  have  been  diversely  interpreted  from  the  earliest  to  the 
latest  time  since  its  promulgation. 

{c)  When  strictly  and  literally  construed,  it  contains  no  express  gift 
of  either  teaching  or  ruling  authority  ;  which  accordingly  cannot  be  legally 
read  into  it. 

{d)  It  is  exclusively  personal  in  wording,  and  is  therefore  limited  to 
S.  Peter  singly. 

[e)  It  contains  no  clause  contemplating  or  empowering  its  extension  to 
any  other  person  than  S.  Peter. 

(/)  The  interpretation  actually  put  upon  it  by  Ultramoutanes  denies, 
interferes  with,  and  encroaches  upon,  the  rights  and  privileges  of  all  other 
Patriarchs,  Metropolitans  and  Bishops  of  the  Church  Universal. 

{g)  It  has  been  habitually  exercised  with  excess  and  abuse,  and  has 
thus  been  lofig  since  forfeited,  assuming  that  it  ever  existed. 

II.  Holy  Scripture,  construed  as  a  legal  document  tendered  in  evidence 
of  the  Petrine  Claims,  not  only  fails  to  corroborate,  but  directly  contradicts, 
them. 

III.  The  Liturgies,  as  evidence  of  the  mind  of  whole  Churches,  and 
remounting  to  remote  antiquity,  recognise  no  supreme  authority  as  vesting 
in  S.  Peter  himself,  not  to  say  any  persons  claiming  to  inherit  from  him. 

IV.  The  great  majority  of  the  eminent  Fathers  of  the  Church  interpret 
the  three  great  Petrine  texts,  in  S.  Matthew  xvi,  S.  Luke  xxii,  and  S.  John 
xxi,  in  a  sense  contrary  to  the  Ultramontane  gloss  ;  and  thus  make  that  gloss 
untenable  by  Roman  Catholics,  who  are  bound  to  interpret  Scripture  only 
'  according  to  the  unajiimous  consent  of  the  Fathers.' 

V.  The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  undisputed  General  Councils  of  the 
Church,  and  those  of  a  large  number  of  provincial  and  other  local  councils, 
down  to  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  are  wholly  incompatible  with 
any  belief  in  the  Petrine  Claims  having  been  currently  received  throughout 
the  Church. 

27 


41 8  TJie  Petrine  Ciauns. 

VI.  The  Acts  (as  distinguished  from  the  formulated  decrees)  of  the 
Councils,  those  of  many  Popes  and  of  many  eminent  Fathers,  are  incapable 
of  being  reconciled  with  the  Petrine  Claims. 

VII.  No  trustworthy  or  even  probable  evidence  is  adducible  for  the  fact 
that  S.  Peter  was  ever  Bishop  of  Rome. 

VIII.  Not  only  is  the  case  for  a  Petrine  Privilege  destroyed,  but  the 
breaks  in  the  chain  of  prescription  are  so  numerous  and  serious  as  to  make 
it  impossible  to  establish  the  Petrine  Claims  on  that  basis. 

IX.  Even  if  there  ever  had  been  a  Petrine  succession,  with  devolution 
of  the  Petrine  Privilege,  in  the  See  of  Rome,  it  has  been  entirely  annulled 
and  voided  by  demonstrable  and  incurable  flaws,  so  that  no  valid  Pope  has 
sat  for  more  than  four  centuries,  or  can  be  secured  in  the  future  by  any  now 
existing  machinery  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

And  now,  what  will  our  Roman  friends  do  about  this 
pungent  book?  It  is  simply  unanswerable,  and  the  wise 
among-  them  know  it.  Hence  the  common  saying  among 
them,  that  to  appeal  to  History  is  Heresy.  With  them,  the 
''voice  of  the  living  Church" — that  is  to  say,  the  latest 
novelty  issued  by  the  Pope  of  Rome — is  the  sole  fountain 
of  truth.  If  History  does  not  agree  with  that,  then  so  much 
the  worse  for  History  !  If  they  would  take  our  advice — 
which  they  are  not  likely  to  do  —we  should  advise  them  to 
let  it  alone.  It  is  the  advice  we  should  give  to  any  dog 
who  should  meet  a  porcupine.  The  dog  generally  takes  the 
other  way.  He  barks  furiously  all  around  the  porcupine — 
which  does  not  hurt  the  porcupine  in  the  slightest.  But 
every  attempt  to  bite  the  porcupine  is  sure  to  hurt  the  dog! 
We  shall  wait  and  see.  Meanwhile,  we  rejoice  that  the 
great  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  has 
placed  this  admirable  book  upon  its  permanent  list  of 
standard  publications,  and  long  may  it  there  remain! 

J.  H.  Hopkins. 


What  is 


^'^\\^'^>?^>\>VVS!«^''-.^v^^ 


CASTORIA 


Castoria  is  Dr.  Samael  Pitcher's  prescription  for  Infants 
and  Children,  It  contains  neither  Opium,  Morphine  nor 
other  Narcotic  suhstance.  It  is  a  harmless  substitute 
for  Paregoric,  Drops,  Soothing  Syrups,  and  Castor  Oil, 
It  Is  Pleasant.  Its  guarantee  is  thirty  years'  use  by 
Millions  of  Mothers.  Castoria  destroys  Worms  and  allays 
feverishness.  Castoria  prevents  vomiting  Sour  Curd, 
cures  Diarrhoia  and  "Wind  Colic.  Castoria  relieves 
teething  troubles,  cures  constipation  and  flatulency. 
Castoria  assimilates  the  food,  regulates  the  stomach 
and  bowels,  giving  healthy  and  natural  sleep.  Cas« 
toria  is  the  Children's  Panacea— the  Mother's  Friend, 


Castoria. 


"Castoria  is  an  excellent  nnedicine  for  chil- 
dren. Mothers  have  repeatedly  told  me  of  its 
good  effect  upon  their  children.'" 

Db.  G.  C.  Osgood, 
Lowell,  Mass. 

''  Castoria  is  the  best  remedy  for  children  of 
which  I  am  acquainted.  I  hope  the  day  is  not 
far  distant  when  mothers  will  consider  the  real 
interest  of  their  children,  and  use  Castoria  in- 
stead of  the  various  quack  nostnuns  which  are 
destroying  their  loved  ones,  by  forcing  opium, 
morphine,  soothing  syrup  and  other  hurtful 
agents  down  their  throats,  thereby  sending 
them  to  premature  graves." 

Da.  J.  F.  KiNCHKLOB, 

Conway,  Arlc. 


Castoria. 

"  Castoria  is  so  well  adapted  to  children  that 
I  recommend  it  as  superior  to  any  prescription 
known  to  me." 

H.  A.  Archbr,  M.  D., 
Ill  So.  Oxford  St.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

"  Our  physicians  in  the  children's  depart- 
ment have  spoken  highly  of  their  experi- 
ence in  their  outside  practice  with  Castoria. 
and  although  we  only  have  among  our 
medical  suppUes  what  is  known  as  regular 
products,  yet  we  are  free  to  confess  that  the 
merits  of  Castoria  has  won  us  to  look  with 
favor  upon  it." 

United  HospirAL  and  Dispensary, 
Boston, 
Allen  C.  Smith,  Pres., 


Tho  Centaur  Company,  T7  Murray  Street,  New  York  City. 


!i.L.Bowii'sHeaii(Eieniiser 

For  Brain-Workers  and  Sedentary  People, 


Gentlemen,  Ladies  and 
Youths,  the  Athlete  or 
Invalid.  A  complete 
gymnasium.  Takes  up 
but  6  inches  square  floor 
room ;  something  new, 
scientific,  durable,  com- 
prehensive, cheap.  In- 
dorsed by  20,000  physi- 
cians,  lavi^ers,  clergy- 
men, editors  and  others 
novsr  using  it.  Send  for 
illustrated  circular,  forty 
engravings;  no    charge. 

Prof.D.L.DOWD 

Scientific  Physical 
and  Vocal  Culture, 

9  East  Uth  St„    knM 


«*T]ie  Gladstone'* 

LAMP 

is  the  finest  lamp  m  the  world.  It 
gives  a  pure,  8oft»  brilliant 

i;vhite  light  of  85  candle 
power.  Purer  and  brighter 
than  gaslight;  softer  than 
electric  light— more  cheer- 
ful than  either.  A  Marvelous 
lif/ht  from  ordinary  kerosene 
oil  I 

Seeing  is  Believing. 

A  "w  onderful  lamp"  it  13 
indeed.  Neverneeds trim- 
ming, never  smokes  nor 
breaks  chimneys,  never 
"smells  of  the  oil;"  no 
sputtering,  no  climbing  of 
the  tlamo,  no  annoyance  of 
any  kind,  and  cannot 
explode.  And  besides  all 
it  gives  a  elear,w\l\te  %/'^ 
10  to  aO  times  the  size  and 
brilliancy  of  any  ordinary 
house  lamp  I  Finished  in 
either  Hiass.  Nickel,  Gold 
or  Antique  Bronze.  Also 
The  Gladstone  Extension  Stndy  liamp, 
for  Clergymen,  Editors,  College  Students,  Teachers, 
Professors,  Physicians  and  other  professional  men. 
The  Gladstone  Banquet  I/amps. 

The  Gladstone  Piano  Ijamps. 
Send  for  price  li'<t.    .-inglo  lamps  at  irholfxale  prire, 
boxed  and  .sent  by  express.     jBt^  Get  our  prices.    "Seeing 
itbelievinj." 

©L,Al>STOXK  LAMP  CO., 

JIO  £ust  14th  »to,  New  York' 


MARLIM 


Miliar 


MODEL'81  REPEATERS. 
MODEL'89  REPEATERS. 


THE  LATEST.    MODEL  1889. 
MARLIN 

SAFETY    REPEATING 

RIFLE 

using  the  32, 38,  and  44  Winchester 

cartridges,  having  a 
SOLID    TOP  RECEIVER, 
Excluding  all  dirt  or  moist 
ure  from  the  lock. 

LOADINGI!^  EJECTING 

from  the  side,  away  from 
the  face  of  the  shooter. 
Weighing  but 

6)4  POUNDS 

and  a  model  of  sym 


MODEL 

81 

REPEATERS 

60  and  45-70 

calibres, 

LOW  TRAJECTORY 

STRONG 

SHOOTING. 


metry  and  beauty. 
Shoots  witla 
greater 

ACCURACY 

than  any 
other.  Don't 
buy  until 
you  see  the 

MARLIN 
SAFETY 
MODEL, 
1889 


THE 
BALLARD 

still  remains  the  best 
shooting  rifle  In   the 
world. 

MARLIN'S 

DOUBLE   ACTION 

AUTOMATIC   EJECTING 

REVOLVER 

In  workmanship,  finish  and 
accuracy  of  shooting;  sec- 
ond to  none. 

WRITE  US 
for  information.   All  Inquir- 
answered  promptly. 
ASK    YOUfT    DEALER 
to  show  you  our  rifles.     For  a 
complete  description  of  the  best 
Repeating    Rifles  In  the  world, 
write  for  Illustrated  Catalogue  D, 
f  to  the 

MARLIN  FIRE  ARMS  CO., 

NEW  HAVEN,  CONN., 

U.S.A.  .A~ 


box  1064  Q 


IDEAL  BELOADINB  TOOIS 

FOR  ALL  0 

RIFLES,  Pistols  f 
and  Shot  Guns.     V 

Best  in  the  World.  Send^ 
for  Illustrated  Descriptive  g 
Circular.  ;i 

IDEAL    MF'G    CO., 

New  Haven,  Conn. 


riNANGlAL 


SS^^^ 


TiiE 


Winner  Investment  Co. 


O  FULL  PAID  CAPITAL,  $1,000,000.  > 

THIS  Company  does  strictly  an  investment  business  and  shares  with  investors  the  results 
of  conservative  and  profitable  investments.  It  offers  a  fixed  income,  large  profits,  and 
absolute  security.  Nearly  ^2,000,000  net  profits  paid  to  investois  since  1883,  from  Kar.sas 
City  (Mo  )  real  estate  investments.  At  the  present  time  opportunity  is  offered  to  invest  in 
bonds,  secured  by  first  mortgage  on  one  of  the  best  office  buildings  in  the  West,  yielding 
6  per  cent  guaranteed  interest.  A  bonus  of  stock  in  the  building  company  accompanies 
each  bond.  Also  in  bonds  secured  by  first  mortgage  on  residence  ])roperty  in  and  adjacent  to 
Kansas  City,  in  the  line  of  immediate  development,  yielding  8  per  cent  guaranteed  interest. 
These  bonds  participate  in  one  half  the  net  profits  and  run  five  years  Send  for  pamphlet 
and  monthly  circulars. 

KAIl/SAS  CITY  BRIDGE  AND  TERMINAL  RAILWAY 

Six  per  cent  Gold  Bonds,  due  1919,  with  bonus  of  stock  in  the  Company  that  will  yield  an 
income  in  1S91      Central  Trust  Company  of  New  York,  Trustees. 
Ji^^Other  choice  investments  not  obtainable  elsewhere- 


VlbblA/n  H.  PAR/nENTER. 


GENERAL   AGENT, 

Nos.  50  &  51  Times  Building,  New  York  City 
Wo.  1  Custom  House  Street,  Providence,  R    I 


60  STATE  STREET,  BOSTON. 


Improvement  the  Order  of  the  Age.' 


THE    NEW    SMITH    PREMIER 


TYPEWRITER, 

Unequalled  in  all  essentials  of  a  perfect  writing  machine- 
Speed,  ease  of  operation,  permanent  alignment  and  dura- 
bility a  specialty.  All  type  cleaned  in  ten  seconds 
withotit  soiling  the  hands. 

Ilhistrated  Catalogue  mailed  free  to  readers 
of  this  Rez'ien'. 

The  Smith  Prem'er  Typewriter  Co., 

SYRACUSE,    N.  Y.,   U.S.  A. 


AGENCY  OF  THE  CHEQUE  BANK, 
LIMITED,  OF  LONDON, 

ESTABLISHED  1873. 

TThe  Right  Honorable  Earl  Beauchamp. 
Trustees  :<  John   Edward  Taylor,    Esq.,    Proprietor 

I  "Manchester  Guardian." 

Head  Office:  4  Waterloo  Place,  Pall  Mall,  London, 


Winter  Travel. 

Travelers  contemplating  visiting  the  Inter- 
national Exhibition  of  Jamaica,  in  the  West 
Indies,  in  January  next,  or  any  other  part  of 
the  West  Indies,  Mexico,  or  Central  America, 
will  find  the  Cheque  Bank  Cheques  available  on 
board  the  Steamers  that  leave  the  port  of  New 
York  for  the  West  Indies,  as  well  as  at  all  the 
branches  of  the  Colonial  Bank,  West  Indies, 
and  other  places  in  Cuba,  Mexico,  etc. 

Full  information  sent  or  given  by 

E.J. Mathews  &  Company, Agents, 

No.  2  Wall  St.,  New  York. 

The  late  Right  Honorable  John  Bright  was  one  of  the 
original  Shareholders  and  Trustees  of  this  Bank,  and  re 
•nained  such  until  the  day  of  his  decease. 


RAI12R9ABS. 


Lehigh  Valley 

.   RAILROAD  •    . 

AND 

AMERICA'S  GRANDEST  SCENERY. 


DOUBLE 
TRACK. 


STEEL 

RAILS. 


THE    POPULAR    ROUTE 

BETWEEN 

NEW  YORK,    PHILADELPHIA, 

EASTON,  WILKESBARRE,        GENEVA,  ROCHESTER, 

BETHLEHEM,  PITTSTON,  WAVERLY,  BUFFALO, 

ALLENTOWN,  SCRANTON,  WATKINS'   GLEN,        NIAGARA    FALLS, 

MAUCH    CHUNK,       ITHACA,  ELMIRA, 


TORONTO, 


DETROIT,  CHICAGO,  ST.  LOUIS,  AND  ALL  POINTS  WEST. 


PULLMAN  PALACE  CARS  ON  ALL  THROUGH  TRAINS. 

ANTHRACITE   COAL   USED   EXCLUSIVELY.        NO   DUST.       NO   SMOKE. 


TICKET  OFFICES.  — New  York:  General  Eastern  Office,  235  Broadway;  Depot,  foot  of 
Cortlandt  Sueet ;  Depot,  foot  of  Desbrosses  Street.  Philadelphia.  :  836  Chestnut  Street ;  P.  &  R. 
Depot,  Ninth  and  Green  Streets;  P.  &  R.  Depot,  Third  and  Berks  Streets. 

^^--j;^         The  mountain  and  valley  scenery  traversed  by  this  line  is  the  most  beautiful  and  pic- 
•iC^^^turesque  in  America,  embracing  the  romantic  valleys  of  tlie  Susquehanna  and  Lehigh,  and 
the  historic  Wyoming.    Ask  for  Tickets  via  "  Lehigh  Valley  Route." 

E.   B.  BYINGTON, 

Gen'l  Pass.  Agent,  So.  Bethlehem,  Pa, 


JOHN    WILSON. 


CHARLES    E.    WENTWORTH. 


©ntbersitg  ^rcss. 


(established   1639.) 


John  Wilson  and  Son, 

Electrotypers  and  Printers^ 


CAMBRIDGE,    MASS. 


FOOD  PRODUCTS. 


The  United  States  Official 
Investigation 

Of  Baking  Powders,  recently  made,  under  authority  of 
Congress,  by  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C,  furnishes  the  highest  authoritative  informa- 
tion as  to  which  powder  is  the  best.    The  Official  Report 

Shows  the  ROYAL  to  be  a 
cream  of  tartar  baking  pow- 
der, superior  to  all  others  in 
strength  and  leavening  power. 

The  Royal  Baking  Powder  is  absolutely  pure,  made 
from  the  most  wholesome  materials,  and  produces  finer 
flavored,  sweeter,  lighter,  more  wholesome  and  delicious 
bread,  biscuit,  cake,  pastry,  etc.,  than  any  other  baking 
powder  or  leavening  agent. 

Food  raised  by  it  will  keep  sweet,  moist,  fresh  and 
palatable  longer  than  when  raised  by  yeast  or  other 
baking  powders. 

Being  of  greater  strength  than  any  other  baking 
powder,  it  is  also  the  most  economical  in  use. 

These  great  qualities  warrant  you,  if  you  are  not 
using  the  Royal  Baking  Powder,  in  making  a  trial  of  it 


FOOD  PRODUCTS.  Ms^ 


A  CHA.VCK  OF  A  LIFE-TIME,  m  PREMIUM  \0. 27. 


Latest  and  Best  Inducements  offered  in  Premiums  and 
Discounts  to  introduce  and  get  orders  for  our  iVevv  Teas 
Just  Received,  wliich  are  I^lcked  from  the  Select 
Tea  Gardens  of  China  and  Japan,  none  but  the 
Highest  Grade  Leaf  being  used.  AH  guaranteed  abso- 
lutely Pure.  Handsome  New  Premiums  of  Imported 
China,  Lamps,  etc..  given  away  with  orders  of  ;gio.oo 
and  upwards,  or  discounts  made  if  preferred.  Good 
Teas,  30,  35  &  40  cts.  Excellent  Family  Teas,  50  &  60 
cts.  Very  Best,  65  to  go  ^ts.  per  lb.  Special — We  will  send 
by  mail  a  Trial  Order  of  1%  lbs.  of  our  very  Fine 
Teas  on  receipt  of  $2.00.  When  ordering,  be  particular 
and  state  if  you  want  Formosa  or  Amoy  Oolong,  Mixed, 
Young  Hyson,  Gunpowder,  Imperial,  Japan,  English 
Breakfast,  or  Sun-Sun  Chop.  No  Humbug.  Remem- 
ber we  deal  only  in  Pure  Goods.  Send  at  once  for  a 
Trial  Order  i  the  Old  Reliable  and  enjoy  a  cup 
of  Good  Tea.  For  particulars,  address  The  Gre.'vt 
American  Tea  Co.,  31  &  33  Vesey  St.,  New  York, 
N.  Y.     P.  O.  Box  287. 


IN  FANTSj^^NVAUDS 


FOOD 


The  only  perfect  substitute  for 
Mother's  Milk.  Invaluable  in  Chol- 
era Infantum  and  Teething.  A 
pre-digested  food  for  Dyspeptics, 
Consumptives,  Convalescents.  Per- 
fect nutrient  in  all  Wasting  Diseases. 
Requires    no   cooking.       Our   Book, 

The  Care  and  Feeding  of  Infants, 

mailed  free. 

Doliber-Goodale  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 


HUCKINS 


kliTTTlH 


Tomato, 
Ox  Tail, 
Pea, 

Beef, 
Vermicelli, 


Mock  Turtle, 
Okra  or  Gumbo, 
Green  Turtle, 
Julienne, 
Chicken, 


Terrapin, 
Macaroni, 
Consomme', 
Soup  and  Bouilli, 
Mullagatawny. 


RICH  and  PERFECTLY  SEASONED. 

Eeqnire   only  to  be  heated,  and  I  Prepared  with  great  care  from  I  Have  enjoyed  the  highest  reputa- 
are  then  ready  to  serve.        |        only  tlie  best  materials.        |      tion  for  more  than  32  years. 


fB»McaMiMiHaaH^M|      Send  us  20  cents,  to  help  pay  express,  and  receive,  prepaid,  two  sam- 
I  TCQT    CRPF       Pl®  c&^»  of  these  Soups,  your  choice. 

'  '  J.  H.  W.  HUCKEVS  &  CO., 

BOLD  BY  ALL  LEADING  GROC£SS.  Sole  Manufacturers.  Boston,  Massi 


RICHARDSON  (StBOYNTONCO.'S 


"PERFECT" 

(Trade-Mark) 

^^ARM-AIR 

AND 

HOT-WATER  HEATERS 

are  in  construction  and  modern  im- 
provements greatly  in  advance  of  all 
others. 


Perfect "  Gas-Tight  Furnace. 


Correspondence  solicited  and  Estirnates  furnished 
for  heating 

CHURCHES,    SCHOOLS, 

LECTURE-ROOMS, 

HOSPITALS 
or  other  buildings,  Public  or  Private. 


Send  for   Testimonials. 


•«  Perfect "  Hot- Water  Heater. 


RICHARDSON  &  BOYNTON  CO. 

Sole  Manufacturers, 

Nds.  232   &  234  WATER   STREET; 

84  Lake  St.,  Chicago.  NEW  YORK, 


THE    MOST    AND    BEST    LIGHT    FROM 
KEROSENE    OIL. 


Perfect. 
Elegant. 


THE  "ROCHESTER"  LAMP 

HAVE    YOUR    FACTORY    SAFE,   YOUR   STORE    ATTRACTIVE,    AND    YOUR    HOME 
CHEERFUL,  WITH    THE    LIGHT   OF   THE    "ROCHESTER." 


No    148 

ROCHESTER  BRACKET  LAMP. 

All  elegant  Side  Lamp  for  Residences,  Churches, 
Halls,  &c.,  &c.  Projection,  14  inches. 
With  Detachable  Metal  Fount.  No.  2 
Rochester  Burner. 

Antique  Brass  Finish. 


We  warrant  every  lamp.  We  have  made  more  than  ONE  MILLION  since  1835  (date  of  patent). 
We  show  over  ONE  THOUSAND  varieties  (our  store  is  an  art  room)  of  Library,  Hall,  Piano,  and 
Banquet  Lamps,  Chandeliers,  Vase  Lamps,  etc.,  etc. 

Every  genuine  lamp  is  plamly  marked  the  "  ROCHESTER."      Take  no  other  frovt  your  dealer. 


MANUFACTURED    BY 


Edward  Miller  &  Co, 


10    and    19    COLI.EOE    PLACE, 

Three  minutes'  walk  from  Post  Office. 


NEW   YORK. 

Send  for  Circil.ar. 


STONE  FILTERS 


NATURAL  STONE  WATER    FILTERS 

IN   USE  ALL  OVER  THE  WORLD. 

¥     *     * 
FINE    DECORATED   CHINA 

AND 

GRAY  STONEWARE  JARS 

TO 

HOLD  THE  WATER. 


A  NATURAL  STONE  FOR  A 
FILTERING   MEDIUM. 


FITTED    WITH    SEPARATE    PATENT 

ICE    CHAMBERS 

TO   COOL   THE   WATER. 


As  Easily  Cleaned  as  a  Water  Pitcher. 


Open  cut  shows  filter  disc  used  in  our  filters, 
and  separate  patent  ice  chambers. 


-S*i  ->H-  -jii. 

.«t«.  ^t*'  ■•♦*• 


FOR  USE  IN  OFFICES,  HOMES,  AND  SCHOOLS. 


For  free  descriptive   price  list,  address, 


GATE  CITY  STONE   FILTER  CO., 

J.  A.  DAVENPORT,  Manager, 
46    Murray   Street,    New  York  City. 


^-^QJ.' 


NStiRANGE 


n^^C^y:^{rrr, 


STABILITY,  EXPERIENCE, 

PROTECTION, 

AND 

PROVISION    FOR    THE    FUTURE, 

All  Combined  in  the  New  Policy  of  the 

MANHATTAN    LIFE 

INSURANCE    COMPANY, 

OF   NEW  YORK.  ORGANIZED,   i8jo. 


THIS  OLD   COMPANY 
NOW  OFFERS  TO  THE   INSURING   PUBLIC   ITS   NEW 

SURVIVORSHIP  DIMDEND  PLAN. 

IVhich  affords  all  the  advantages  of  Life  Insurance  during  the  earlier  years 
of  life,  and  at  the  same  time  makes  a  provision  for  old  age,  as  the  Policy- 
holder can  surrender  his  Policy  at  the  end  of  the  Survivorship  Dividend 
Period  and  receive  its  Full  lvalue  in  Cash  — thus  combining  INVESTMENT 
and  PROTECTION. 

RNY  INFORMATION  CHEERFULLY    FURNISHED. 


HENRY    B.  STOKES,   President. 
JACOB    L.    HALSEY,  Vice-President. 

H.  Y.  WEMPLE,  2d  Vice-Pres.  J.  H.  GRIFFIN,  Jr.,  Asst.  Secv. 

W.  C.  FRAZEE,  Secretary.  E.  L.  STABLER,  Actuary. 


This  book  is  due  two  weeks  from  the  last  date  stamped 
below,  and  if  not  returned  at  or  before  that  time  a  fine  of 
five  cents  a  day  will  be  incurred. 


SUMM 

'\-.\  .-     - 

1 

1 

'ORT 

4UL  1 6  193 

% 

J 

♦ 

Premiums 

D21.10 

Interest,  i 
Total 

345.14 
16624: 

- — c )g5  50 

Death-Cla: 

Dividends, 
Total 

)26.l6 
121.66 

New  Folic 
New  Insui 

59,499 
)88.00 

Assets    . 

Divisible  £ 

'     *.                     \00.96 

YliTA  -                    523.28 

Tontine  Si 
Liabilities, 
Suwliis  h 

-:                           )53.11 
)58.57 

Policies  in 
Insurance 

)0,381 
>70.00 

Increase  ir 

;53.06 

Increase  ir 

Increase  in  ourpius  lor  uiviaenas 

Increase  in  Premiums 

Increase  in  Total  Income      .     .     . 

Increase  in  Assets 

Increase  in  Insurance  Written 
Increase  in  Insurance  in  Force 


'51.61 

1,716,849,01 

3,458,330.35 

3,761,983.41 

11,573,414.41 

26,099,357.00 

75,715,465.00 


RESULTS   FOR   FORTY-FIVE   YEARS 

Total  received  from  Policy-holders 

Paid  to  Policy-holders  and  their  representatives     .     .     .     . 

Assets  held  as  security  for  Policy-holders,  January  1,  1890 

Total  amount  paid  Policy-holders  and  now  held  as  security 

for  their  contracts 

Amount  paid  and  held  exceeds  amount  received .     . 
Interest  and  Remits  exceed  Death-losses  paid   .    .    . 


FROM  1845   TO   1890. 

.      .      .     .        $223,526,284.49 


$129,344,058.87 
105,053,600.96 

$234,397,659.83 

$10,871,375.34 
2,827,812.34. 


These  figures  show  a  growth  as  marvellous  as  it  has  been  continuous,  and  a  pres- 
ent strength  and  volume  of  business  that  furnish  the  most  ample  guarantees  to 
intending  insurers. 


SPECIAL  ATTENTION  IS  CALLF"^  ""^  T.r.j::r;;:;'"  -'■is, 


jaelt)  l^odi  %ih 


003551&774 


The  New  York  Life  was  the  first  Company,  and  for  thirty-five  years  the  only  Com- 
pany, to  omit  from  its  policies  the  clause  making  them  void  in  case  of  suicide. 

The  New  York  Life  was  the  first  Company  to  recognize  the  policy-holder's  right  to 
paid-up  insurance,  in  case  of  a  discontinuance  of  prciniuni.s,  />y  orti^iiHitiiii;  and  inlra- 
ditcini^,  in  1800,  the  first  non-forfeiture  policies,  —  the  beginning  of  the  modern  non-forfeit- 
ure system,  which  has  become  a  part  of  the  insurance  statutes  of  the  cmmtrv.  On 
the  present  volume  of  business,  the  savinfc  to  policy-holders,  bv  reason  of  tl: 
principle,  as  ori^^inai 
per  year. 

The  New  York  Lif 


thereby  adapting  its 
Mortuary-Divi 
return  of  all  p 
specified  periocv^ 

The  returns 
those  of  an 
age  and  prer 

The  policies 
tions  as  to 
approval  by 


The  New  York 


Life  Insuran 

It   is  a  protecti 

to  price,  am( 

stances  and  ( 

Policies  on  this 

only  for  wha 

may  be  taker 

rate  for  ordi 

or  quarterly 

If  you  are  stru 

paying  the 

method  of  re 

event  of  death 

Information 
of  matured  poll 


or  any  of  its  G( 


Wm.  H.  Appleton. 
William  H.  Beers. 
William  A.  Booth. 
Hon.  Benj.  H.  Bristow. 
Henry  Bowers. 


/e 


e  a  U  I  A  va 


BRITTLE  DO  NOT 
PHOTOCOPY 


'/(re 
!ars 

ipany, 
ected  a 
ranteed 
ring  a 

id  by 

same 


;tnc- 
and 


n  for 

:d  as 

-cum- 

pays 
nts  it 
gular 
ually, 

e,  or 

is  a 
in  the 


suits 
mny, 


lent 


John  tLAPLiN. 
Robert  B.  Collins. 
Alex.  Studwell. 
Elias  S.  Higgins. 
Walter  H.  Lewis. 


Edward  Martin. 
Richard  Miser. 
George  H.  Potts. 
C.  C.  Baldwin. 
John  N.  Stearns. 


"Wm.  L.  Strong. 
W.  F.  Bl-ckley. 
Henry  Tuck. 
A.  H.  Welch. 
L.  L.  White. 


